Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fair use rationale for Image:UDR.PNG

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:UDR.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Untrue and partisan"

It is claimed the collusion allegations are so. Given they are sourced from wholly reliable sources including the British Government itself and no partisan sources are being used, I invite further discussion here. One Night In Hackney303 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Answer - re claims

It is absolutely correct that the allegations are untrue and partisan. A claim is made that these allegations are supported by "official declassified documents" (4). There is one document cited which is speculative and inconclusive. It does however clearly outline the same fears about Catholic involvement which is not cited in the article.

(5) Cites the Irish News as a source. The Irish News is a partisan publication. I would have the same objections if the quote were from the Belfast Newsletter.

Furthermore in the Cain article, it describes the loss of arms from Lurgan TA Centre at the time it was occupied by 2 UDR. Although there may have been "inside information" leading up to the theft it is a known fact that the terrorists were unprepared for the number of arms they were able to steal and had to use a military vehicle to transport these weapons outside the base. This was recovered only hours later with its cargo intact. The released report clearly mentions this but still the number of weapons lost is listed as 200 in the article with no mention of the recovered weaponry.

Nor is there any mention of the fact that, of the 45,000 people who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment only 163 weapons were deemed lost or stolen and unrecoverable. Nor is there any parrallel drawn to similar thefts by the IRA such as the huge theft of arms from Gough Barracks in Armagh in the 1960's by the IRA to indicate that such a theft was possible without collusion from within a British Army unit.

The upshot of this is that the entire perspective of the article is lost because an attempt has been made to criminalise a larger percentage of Ulster Defence Regiment personnel that were actually found to be dubious.

Suspicion is one thing - fact is another. I make no apology for those who were in the UDR to subvert the cause of justice. I merely want to see the facts represented as they should be.

--GDD1000 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Irish News aren't being cited, please read properly. Official British Government documents are bring cited. The collusion between all branches of Crown Forces is well documented. Also, the BBC seem to have the exact same documents as the Irish News, I assume the BBC are reliable enough for you? As for the IRA/Gough Barracks comparison, I fail to see the point. You're objecting to British Government documents about UDR/UVF collusion being cited, yet expect an unsourced comparison made by an editor to be added to the article? One Night In Hackney303 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Try reading "The Ulster Defence Regiment" by Chris Ryder, ISBN 0-413-64800-1, he has a entire chapter on the Bad apples in the UDR.--Padraig (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also "The upshot of this is that the entire perspective of the article is lost because an attempt has been made to criminalise a larger percentage of Ulster Defence Regiment personnel that were actually found to be dubious" - I'd say "an estimated 5-15% of UDR soldiers were directly linked to loyalist paramilitary groups" is clear and unambiguous. And regardless, I've not seen a single point that justifies the wholesale removal of the entire section, thereby removing all mention of well documented collusion between Crown Forces. One Night In Hackney303 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


The Irish News is clearly being cited with regards to the killing of Catholis by UDR weapons. This has never been proven except in the cases which are listed below starting with eh 1973 killings of the Miami Showband. That is not in contention. The Irish News, like most Northern Ireland newspapers is partisan and is not an accurate source. If the document is quoted by the BBC then use the BBC quote.

The "Official Document" quoted on Cain does not conclusively show that anyone was involved in collusion. It is speculative. Furthermore it was written in 1973 and no-one goes on to explain how the regiment was refined between then and 1996. An "estimated link" which could be wrong by up to 10% is hardly proof positve of anything. Neither is the claim that over 200 UDR weapons passed to Loyalist Paramilitaries, especially as the very article from Cain you're basing your argument on clearly shows that only 163 weapons went missing. Most of which were stolen in arms raids and not "passed over" as the article suggests. More than that were recovered from UVF and UFF arms caches so how can that be the most "significant source of modern weapons" for Loyalist paramilitary groupings? The very report you're usuing to substantiate these claims says "The question of whether there was collusion by UDR members in these thefts is a difficult one. In no case is there proof positive of collusion: but in every case there is considerable suspicion, which in some instances is strong enough to lead to a judgment that an element of collusion was present." so there's no proof, just suspicion but you're allowing the article to say that these claims are accurate.

Furthermore the article quotes that "Catholics in the UDR were soon victims of intimidation." It doesn't point out that the intimidation came from within their own community as well as from within the UDR. This is essential information.

The item should reflect the truth and if something is speculation it should be clearly shown as speculation. These items about "supposed" collusion are just that - supposed.

What is happening here is that the article is being allowed to remain with a pro-Nationalist agenda. There should absolutely be an expression of Nationalist fears about joing the UDR and their concerns about it being involved in collusion, because these were genuine concerns and some collusion definitely happened. For the item to conform to the Wikipedia concept however it is essential that it is accurate.

These claims need to be reworded so that the uneducated reader knows they were made but never established as true - except in the instances where actual criminal convictions are known and quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

--GDD1000 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence the section title of "Collusion allegations". Checkmate. One Night In Hackney303 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's far from being checkmate when the title "Collusion Allegations" has the words "Many of these allegations have since been shown to be accurate from information contained in official declassified documents.[4]" immediately underneath. The report quoted at [4} is not proof of anything other than speculation and the number of arms which went missing. The article doesn't show that many of these arms were recovered nor does it mention that most of them were stolen in arms raids.

Touche!

--GDD1000 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Text

Specifically - which sentences are you not happy with? Copy and paste them here, and give a separate objection to the wording of each one. One Night In Hackney303 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence which says "By the time the UDR became operational on 1 April 1970, it had a strength of 2440; of which 946 were Catholics.[citation needed] Catholics in the UDR were soon victims of intimidation." needs to have the following added - This intimidation sometimes came from within the regiment where many former B Specials still believed the force should be Protestant only, but also from within their own community and IRA sources whose agenda was not served by having a strong Roman Catholic presence in the UDR. A small number of Self Loading Rifles was also lost to the IRA though this campaign of intimidation as many UDR soldiers stored their weapons at home and these were easy prey for both Loyalist and IRA gang members.

I see no proposed reliable sources for those specific additions. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove the sentence which says "Many of these allegations have since been shown to be accurate from information contained in official declassified documents.[4]" Because it isn't true.

I'd already removed it as I was unhappy with the nature of it, but it's still true. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reword this: "In 2004 the British Government released documents that showed overlapping membership between British Army units like the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) and loyalist paramilitary groups was a wider problem than a "few bad apples" as was often claimed. The documents include a report titled "Subversion in the UDR" which details the problem."

To this: In 2004 the British Government released documents which showed they had been concerned about the possibility of collusion between some UDR members and Loyalist paramilitary groupings. Although no evidence was found to prove these claims, suspicions remained that a small number of UDR personnel were passing information to murder gangs.

Unfortunately there was evidence, read the report properly. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reword this: "an estimated 5-15% of UDR soldiers were directly linked to loyalist paramilitary groups"

To this: Although the numbers were never proven it was always believed that a small percentage of UDR personnel had dual membership with Loyalist gangs.

No. We're reporting accurately what sources say, no spin please. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove this: "it was believed that the "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR"," Because it is not true. It is only a suspicion in the 1973 report. we all know the UVF had many more weapons than British Army SLR's, LMG's GPMG's, 9mm pistols and Sterlings which were the only weapons held in UDR armouries.

Absolutely not. We're reporting accurately what sources say. The report states clearly "Since the beginning of the current campaign the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for Protestant extremist groups has been the UDR". Whether you think is it true or not is here nor there. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove this: "the British Government knew that UDR weapons were being used in the killing of Roman Catholic civilians by loyalist paramilitaries. [5]"

Replace it with: The British government knew that some murders had been committed by Loyalist paramilitaries using weapons stolen or lost from UDR armouries. It was suspected that some of the lost weapons had been voluntarily passed to these gangs.

No. We're reporting accurately what sources say, no spin please. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove the sentence which says: "Despite knowing that the UDR had problems and that over 200 weapons had been passed from British Army hands to loyalist paramilitaries" Because the British Government did not "know" this. The report on Cain shows how many weapons wers tolen or lost and how many were recovered. I can't see anyone having objections to the following being used instead - "218 weapons were lost or stolen from UDR soldiers or armouries up to 1973. Of these 132 were subsequently recovered.

No. We're reporting accurately what sources say, no spin please. The recovery is largely irrelevant, it's that they were passed in the first place that is the collusion. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objections to a reference being made to Seamus Mallon's accusation in the House of Commons. May I suggest: In 1992 SDLP MP Seamus Mallon named, in the House of Commons, two officers of field rank from the UDR who were allegedly colluding with the UVF. The names of the two officers were never released by parliament. It is not known if any further action was taken following Mr Mallon's allegation.


Source? One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You only have my word for it though that this happened, unless we can find a reference in Hansard or the Sunday World, who reported it. Much has been said about verifiable sources thus far and I want to try and adhere to that unless the references are non-controversial.

GDD1000 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

The official title of the UDR is now Ulster Defence Regiment CGC - the article title should be changed to reflect that.

Not according to our naming conventions I don't believe. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

COI

You should also include a link to the UDR Association http://www.udrassociation.org/

I hope you find my comments balanced. I can assure you my only wish is to have a true representation of the facts.

--GDD1000 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You're attempting to put a vast amount of spin and your own opinion and interpretation of events, not what is actually said. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can promise you I'm not. I'm stating irrefutable facts. As opposed to what the article currently says which isn't supported by anything more than the conjecture of a report written in 1973 which itself states it has no proof.

Validate anything I've questioned from a non-partisan source and I'll concede that point (or those points). That totally rules out Irish Newspapers, An Phoblacht and whatever they call the UVF magazine! My entire point here is that I don't believe you can validate any of the stuff I've questioned and for that reason alone it shouldn't be on Wikipedia in its present form because the information is incorrect and misleading.

If you don't agree, then allow me to ask another administrator into the discussion to adjudicate. One who has no Irish sympathies in either direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to claim I'm partisan, sadly other people have tried to make that claim but none have ever been able to back it up. I can however reveal that you are a self-admitted former UDR member and will happily forward the email admitting so to any administrator that wishes to see it. Accurately reporting (and attributing) a British Government report is wholly allowed, whether you agree with its contents or not. One Night In Hackney303 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything I said to you in a private e-mail was just that - private - designed to give YOU an insight into the fact that I'M not being partisan. I demand you immediately remove any references to the content of private correspondence.

Actually it proved the opposite. It proves you have a conflict of interest. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

If you're going to quote from you "reliable source" at least do it accurately instead of accusing me of spin.

Lets take your answers again:

Me: A small number of Self Loading Rifles was also lost to the IRA though this campaign of intimidation as many UDR soldiers stored their weapons at home and these were easy prey for both Loyalist and IRA gang members.

You: I see no proposed reliable sources for those specific additions. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Report: There have been isolated incidents where Catholic UDR soldiers have 'lost' weapons in suspicious circumstances, but neither the number of weapons nor the threat is thought to be great.

Summary: the claim that some Roman Catholic UDR soldiers lost their weapons in suspicious circumstances is true - if you believe this report!

Oh dear.
  • You - "A small number of Self Loading Rifles was also lost to the IRA though this campaign of intimidation as many UDR soldiers stored their weapons at home and these were easy prey for both Loyalist and IRA gang members"
  • Report - "There have been isolated incidents where Catholic UDR soldiers have 'lost' weapons in suspicious circumstances, but neither the number of weapons nor the threat is thought to be great."
Anyone can see that your proposed addition doesn't match the source. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Me: In 2004 the British Government released documents which showed they had been concerned about the possibility of collusion between some UDR members and Loyalist paramilitary groupings. Although no evidence was found to prove these claims, suspicions remained that a small number of UDR personnel were passing information to murder gangs.

You: Unfortunately there was evidence, read the report properly. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Report: 17. On the evidence available to us it is not possible to judge the extent to which extremist groups have deliberately attempted to infiltrate their members into the UDR in order to make possible the acquisition of weapons. In some cases and particularly the raid on the HQ of 10 UDR, it seems to have occurred.

Summary: the report admits its evidence is inconclusive.

Again, read the report properly. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Me: Although the numbers were never proven it was always believed that a small percentage of UDR personnel had dual membership with Loyalist gangs.

You: No. We're reporting accurately what sources say, no spin please. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Report: It is likely that there remain within the UDR significant numbers of men (perhaps 5 -15%) who are, or have been, members of Protestant extremist organisations.

Summary: "it is likely" show me the accuracy there please?

Read the report in full, and the secondary sources as well. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Me: The British government knew that some murders had been committed by Loyalist paramilitaries using weapons stolen or lost from UDR armouries. It was suspected that some of the lost weapons had been voluntarily passed to these gangs.

You: No. We're reporting accurately what sources say, no spin please. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Report: One of the Sterling SMGs stolen from the Lurgan UDR/ TAVR centre was recovered in the Shankill on 21 July 1973 in the possession of three men, two of whom were known members of the Shankill UFF/UVF group: they had just robbed a bar. Research at the data reference centre has subsequently indicated that this weapon has been used in at least 12 terrorist outrages, including the murder of a Catholic, and seven other attempted murders.

Summary: The report says ONE MURDER. By a weapon which was stolen. The article clearly states there were mnore than one UDR weapons used but you have no evidence to support this. If you want to state the report as a fact then state it accurately - no spin please!

Read the secondary source as well. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Me: Remove the sentence which says: "Despite knowing that the UDR had problems and that over 200 weapons had been passed from British Army hands to loyalist paramilitaries" Because the British Government did not "know" this. The report on Cain shows how many weapons wers tolen or lost and how many were recovered. I can't see anyone having objections to the following being used instead - "218 weapons were lost or stolen from UDR soldiers or armouries up to 1973. Of these 132 were subsequently recovered.

You: No. We're reporting accurately what sources say, no spin please. The recovery is largely irrelevant, it's that they were passed in the first place that is the collusion. One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Report: lists the weapons which were lost and stolen - the vast majority stolen. It also shows a huge drop on both in 1973. You haven't reported that accurately - more spin from you.

Read the secondary source. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the Seamus Mallon bit being dropped because that could be misconstrued as hearsay now that Martin O'Hagan isn't alive to confirm the facts.

The UDR Association is the offical army association of the Ulster Defence Regiment. They take their naming instructions from Buckingham Palace via parliament. They clearly list the current name of the regiment as "The Ulster Defence Regiment CGC". As does the Royal Irish Regiment website at http://www.royalirishassociation.info/ The Daily Mail reports the award here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408946&in_page_id=1770 and notes that it will be emblazoned on the Regimental Colours and that it is similar to the award of the GC to the RUC (The RUC is listed on Wikipedia as the RUC GC. You can't get more irrefutable evidence than that.

Yes, its article name is Royal Ulster Constabulary, so what's your point? One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So can we have the name changed to the correct one please and have the regiment's official website included. There is precedent for doing so at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Royal_Hussars and other regimental articles on Wikipedia.

--GDD1000 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not finding your responses conducive to a fair outcome on this matter. I have requested intervention from a third party so that the subject matter can be reviewed. In the meantime I request that the disputed subject matter be taken down and the article protected.

--GDD1000 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think so. The answers have been fine, just not the ones you want. A lot of requests your making, now how about backing them up with a valid reason? --Domer48 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing disputed about the material, save an ex-UDR member who wants to whitewash details of his regiment's collusion with other Crown Forces in sectarian murder, reliably sourced including an official government report. One Night In Hackney303 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact it's clear what's going on here, when a sentence of "A small number of Self Loading Rifles was also lost to the IRA though this campaign of intimidation as many UDR soldiers stored their weapons at home and these were easy prey for both Loyalist and IRA gang members" is proposed to be added to the article, supported by a reference that says "There have been isolated incidents where Catholic UDR soldiers have 'lost' weapons in suspicious circumstances, but neither the number of weapons nor the threat is thought to be great". One Night In Hackney303 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Information suppression A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

From your email - "I don't need to read anything about the UDR. I served in the 11th Battalion for three years". Please see WP:COI. One Night In Hackney303 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

As all the comments against my proposed changes are coming from people with declared Republican sympathies then I have no choice but to reject what's been put forward in contention to my requested changes thus far. I state clearly and without equivocation that I will accept a balanced and impartial article.

--GDD1000 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw that personal attack immediately, and you'll also find everything is attributed to the report, which is absolutely fine per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Please less attempts to wikilawyer, it won't get you anywhere. One Night In Hackney303 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


I withdraw nothing. I stand by what I have said. You broke my confidence by publishing part of my e-mail publicly. You are also trying to manipulate my requests as one-sided to try and disguise your own partisan agenda. I will let others judge this issue now - not me.

--GDD1000 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You will learn quick enough about no personal attacks, and coming from an x URD member is a real COI and your contrabutions will be seen as such.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're no intention of withdrawing that comment, please provide evidence I have "declared Republican sympathies". One Night In Hackney303 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgh

I should have checked the talk page before I came in and removed the "allegations" hedging. None of the information about dual-membership, missing weapons, convicted soldiers, etc given is disputed, so it shouldn't be described as "allegations." <eleland/talkedits> 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me anyway. One Night In Hackney303 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this change. I have no desire to see the regiment as painted whiter than white. What is missing is verified positive data to give a balanced view of the regiment's place in history. Its failures AND successes. At the moment the article is unbalanced in that the section illustrating these issues is larger than the section headed "history". I have refrained from editing anything whilst the matter is under review but I am disappointed that you have't added the link to the official Regimental Association which is an essential component to any reader or researcher.

--GDD1000 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing you from linking to it. If you have sourced information that can be added to the history section, it would be a good addition to the article. One Night In Hackney303 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am looking over the material to give a third opinion as requested. I have for the moment segmented but otherwise unchanged the above discussion to aid my examination of the issues, and to aid reference to the sections if needed in my summing up. There are a number of issues here and it may take some time before I give a full response. I would say at this stage that One Night In Hackney is a respected admin on the project with a good deal of knowledge and doesn't do things lightly or flippantly. I would also say that from a quick examination of GDD1000's few edits that GDD1000 appears to be well meaning with a genuine concern that the above issue be addressed, even if the initial edits were rather destructive. The threats of blocking rather than more patient explanations of Wikipedia process and procedure are unpleasant, but come from unhappy experience of vandals who blank pages without comment or explanation - just for fun. Some Wikipedians have discovered the best way of dealing with such people is to give such vandals a quick sharp warning. It turns out that GDD1000 is not such a vandal, but the initial edits would be read by many editors as vandalism. If after reading through the material it turns out that GDD1000's concerns are unfounded and that the full scope of the desired adjustments cannot be made, GDD1000's involvement would still be of value as a process of close critical testing of controversial material is always welcomed. It is up to individuals what they do with private correspondence. There has been some discussion on this, but no rules. The discussion came about because some people feel there is an assumption of trust involved in sending an email, and that it may be felt that the trust is broken if the contents of that private conversation are then made public without a prior agreement. This, of course, is not the case if the email was not sent under an assumption of trust - such as an attack or an "open letter" - and not everyone has the same assumptions (which is why we have conflicts!). It appears to me that both editors are working well in the above discussion to reach an agreement, and though tense there is no savagery taking place. It would appear that while both have done things initially that were quite frictive to the other, both have done so with good intentions, and both are now engaged in an open and meaningful discussion. I'm off to bed now, but will give a closer look at the matter tomorrow. SilkTork *YES! 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, for the record. The email was one of a number of unsolicited emails sent to me (and there is much more information contained in them that I will not divulge to anyone) that I chose not to reply to (working in this subject area, I tend to like my privacy and won't divulge contact details to many people). If an editor willingly admits to being a former UDR member, accompanied by numerous attempts to remove well-sourced negative information from the article or otherwise distort it, I believe it is in everyone's interest that the conflict of interest is made public. It should also be noted that the editor was previously editing as 81.149.73.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), hence the initial level 3 warning on their talk page. Also, the page history will show that I independently made at least one proposed change before it was even proposed, as I wasn't happy with the unsourced analytical wording. One Night In Hackney303 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The apparant bias on the article was drawn to my attention by others. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and therefore must apologise for my ham-fisted efforts initially. I e-mailed ONIH privately to ensure he knew what my connection was and to ensure that a fair discussion ensued. I had no wish to have any of the information I gave him made public and would still request that it be struck from the record. Although it could be argued that because of my affiliations and background my opinions could be considered partisan the very thought of being so is anathema to me. I have noted that ONIH's own page and input contains much in favour of the opposite viewpoint and respectfully suggest that what applies to me also applies to him and others. I unreservedly withdraw any comments which may have appeared as disrespectful or accusatory towards ONIH as my own viewpoint demands fair treatment for everyone. My intention, once you have completed your deliberations SilkTork, is to add further information to the article which will result in a more balanced, verified presentation. I would be grateful, given that some of the material contained within the article will always be seen as contentious, that protection is given to it to prevent vandalism and would appreciate instruction and assistance from others to facilitate me in my efforts until I become more adept at working within Wikipedia guidelines.

--GDD1000 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's well documented that the vast majority of my work on Wikipedia involved documenting modern Irish republicanism. Does that mean I have a conflict of interest? No, and you'll find plenty of evidence to prove my editing is wholly neutral, and neutral editors willing to state that too. Providing your additions stick strictly to what the source says and are free from original research, an expansion of the article gets my seal of approval. One Night In Hackney303 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that your much appreciated work on Irish Republicanism in any way identifies you as deliberately partisan, no more than my own associations necessarily make me blind to the faults, real or suspected, of the Ulster Defence Regiment. What I'm suggesting is: with a strong interest in Republicanism you could be perceived to have a conflict of interest, in much the same way as I could (and have been accused of) coming from what has quaintly been called "the other side". I would rather have this matter resolved before making any additions as what is already in the article may influence my choice of writing style - no matter how neutral I may try to be. Also I need to get to grips with the conventions necessary to stay within Wikipedia guidelines. I would hope we could continue to discuss the matter as I find suitable additions?

--GDD1000 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry for my long delay in looking into this. Real life took a hand this morning, and I had to deal with that. I haven't finished reading through the material, let alone doing a wider research, but I thought I should report back some of my initial thoughts. It appears that there have been accusations of collusion through most of the history of the UDR. It is right and proper that details of these accusations should be discussed within an article on the UDR. And I feel that GDD1000 would agree with that. Where the conflict arises in the editing of this article is in how these accusations are dealt with and presented. It appears that while people have suspected collusion, and such suspicions were fueled by incidents such as the Armagh Four incident, the Miami Showband attack, the Stevens Inquiry and the Patsy Kelly murder, there has not been any real evidence until the 'Subversion in the UDR' document was uncovered. Given that there are some questions about the Armagh Four investigation, and criticisms of the Stevens Inquiry, the bulk of evidence for the accusations comes largely from the 'Subversion in the UDR' document, which is a draft document, and which begins by stating that the investigators were working with a "lack of relevant intelligence" and with a "limited state of [] knowledge in this field". It would be certainly be a worthwhile piece of research to look for other reliable comments on the 'Subversion in the UDR' document to see how it was received. The Guardian accepts the document. As does the the BBC. I like the BBC report - it is recent, and it does talk about the collusion in terms of "Allegations" and "controversial", so it might be appropriate to have an introductory overview in the Collusion with paramilitaries section which uses such words to give a balanced background to a study of the 'Subversion in the UDR' document.
I've looked at the level of vandalism in the article, and there is not enough to justify a protection. Discussion is taking place as to the best way forward, and neither of you have edited the article since I got involved, so don't need to protect on that basis either. I feel confident that the article will move forward in a positive way. The most important thing that you could do, GDD1000, is to find reliable sources that question the UDR's collusion and/or the 'Subversion in the UDR' document, as such evidence would help support your own position. SilkTork *YES! 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say suspicions were fueled by the Miami Showband attack, it was carried out by UDR members who were also UVF members. Actually I'd better clarify that. Collusion can have different levels, depending on who is alleging the collusion and the incidents involved. For example the level of collusion between Brian Nelson and the FRU is much higher, and directly involves the British Army. While some may allege that the collusion between the UDR and UDA/UVF is similar, this collusion is more at a local level. I'd personally lose the Armagh Four incident, when actually looking for sources I saw the details of that and think its inclusion is dubious at best. Also there's a second document, which is briefly mentioned in the Guardian article. There's all sorts of allegations and rumours flying about, such as this where a (now deceased) UDR member was also in the UVF and responsible for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. However I don't advocate hunting down every news story going about UDR collusion and including it, but official government reports are another thing entirely. One Night In Hackney303 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

'Subversion in the UDR' document

(ec)The document makes for interesting reading, and a number of the comments it makes might be usefully used in the Collusion with paramilitaries section. "Since the first days of the UDR the dangers of raising a local force from the two communities, at a time of intercommunal strife, has been clearly recognised, and each applicant has been subjected to a security vetting process" is a useful comment that might well be placed in the introduction to the section. "in many areas where officers and men have known each other all their lives through church or social or Orange Order activities, membership of a Protestant para-military group might not be considered at all unusual or worth reporting to higher authority." and "Some members of the UDR, who also belong to subversive groups, undoubtedly lead 'double lives', and even with the aid of intelligence it is occasionally difficult to persuade a CO that one of his men is a risk." would indicate an acceptance of the complex nature of the formation of the UDR, and that men within the UDR might have institutionalised loyalist sympathies, but would not be seen as being at risk. As regards the "loss" of weapons (quite high compared to the regular army) it says "The question of whether there was collusion by UDR members in these thefts is a difficult one. In no case is there proof positive of collusion: but in every case there is considerable suspicion, which in some instances is strong enough to lead to a judgment that an element of collusion was present." This is one of the strongest accusations the document makes. That there is "considerable suspicion" that the loss of arms was down to "an element of collusion". The other wordings for raids, etc use words like "probably" and "possible", and "unable to discount the possibility of collusion". A fair summary of the document would be that given the circumstances of the UDR's creation, and the higher than average loss of weapons, and knowledge shown in raids on UDR weapons, that there is very high probability that some men did have collusion with paramilitaries, but there is no actual hard evidence. The collusion is a reasonable assessment based on the facts, but the facts do not give hard proof. My conclusion from reading that document is that it does not support the tone of Collusion with paramilitaries as it currently stands. I note that an earlier version of the section was titled "Collusion allegations", and it seems appropriate, given that sources I've looked at also use the word allegations, that this title - or a variation of it - could be employed again. I'd like to see a toning down of the certainty of such sentences: "Throughout the UDR's history, members covertly aided the loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland." to something that follows more accurately the wording and conclusions of the 'Subversion in the UDR' document. A possible would be Throughout the UDR's history, there were allegations that members covertly aided the loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. Evidence believed to have been examined by British military intelligence concluded that while there was "in no case [...] proof positive of collusion" there was however "considerable suspicion". These allegation are seen as "one of the most controversial episodes of Northern Ireland's conflict"[1]. Would that be fair? Would either of you have problems with that? SilkTork *YES! 18:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick question - I assume you've read the full document (the PDF file) and not just the summary? And I don't think that proposed wording is appropriate, certainly the last part. As I stated above, the levels of collusion varied. For example you had UDA member and FRU agent Brian Nelson arranging assassinations allegedly with full knowledge of the FRU, who even provided documents that allowed targeting to take place. There's many other examples of military documents turning up in the hands of loyalist paramilitaries. That's the top end of the collusion scale, as it goes deep into the heart of the British Army, rather than the locally recruited UDR. The UDR collusion is more local level, a UDR member passing information/weapons/whatever onto loyalist paramilitaries, or joint memership of organisations. Then of course you've got the Miami Showband, where people with joint UDR/UVF membership were convicted. I've no problems with additions to this section, but I don't see any problem with the existing wording:
  • an estimated 5-15% of UDR soldiers were directly linked to loyalist paramilitary groups
  • it was believed that the "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR"
  • it was feared UDR troops were loyal to "Ulster" alone rather than to "Her Majesty's Government"
Or am I missing something? Actually I see the first sentence has been changed from the version I remembered, I'll take a look at a reword for that. One Night In Hackney303 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see any summary. I read the PDF and the transcript which appears to be faithful, though doesn't include the underlinings, etc. I'm not advocating removing the stuff you quote above, and I think that GDD1000 will accept many of the conclusions of the 'Subversion in the UDR' document, such as those you've quoted. However, I think that what he is looking for is a balanced assessment of the situation. What problems do you have with the BBC saying that this issue is controversial? Note that in my proposed sentence I do not say that the situation IS controversial, but that it is SEEN as controversial, and then I quote the BBC, one of the most highly respected and trusted sources that we use. I'd be happy to look at your rewording. SilkTork *YES! 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The CAIN link contains a summary of the full report, as you've seen there's more details not included in the summary in the PDF file. The problem I have is that although collusion as a whole is controversial, there's different levels of it. The Finucane killing (and others associated with Nelson) are at the top end of the scale, while the UDR are less so. For example both the BBC, Guardian and The Times described Finucane's killing as one of the most controversial deaths of the Troubles. Therefore I'm wary of saying UDR-linked collusion is "one of the most controversial episodes of Northern Ireland's conflict". I'd also recommend reading this. There's no problems with its reliability I don't think, as it's been reported on by the BBC. One Night In Hackney303 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The danger here is that the entire article could become consumed by collusion allegations. It may well be best to create a separate page to document the allegations in full. Because all your reference documents contain information concerning the police, army, UDR and other government agencies their inclusion on a specific UDR page clouds the main article and the reading material is too involved for the average Wikipedia reader (but an essential tool for the serious researcher). As for the Armagh 4. The reference should remain on the UDR page because it's fact.

--GDD1000 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the changes proposed by SilkTork. I have little faith in the 1973 British Intelligence report because it has no standing in law and is based upon surmisation. I agree that the sum content of the document gives rise to severe suspicion and having more intimate personal knowledge of the subject than some others I would agree that there were grounds for that suspicion. Neither my opinion or that 1973 document are conclusive proof however so the wording should be restricted to "allegation," surmisation", "suspicion" or other words which do not suggest that the 1973 document is proof positive. Brian Nelson was not linked to the Ulster Defence Regiment so any parallels with him and his circumstances don't belong in this article or this discussion, in my opinion. With regards to absolute facts like the Miami Showband killings, the Stevens Enquiry and the Armagh Four: these are verifiable and should be included. The allegations regarding David Jordan are just that - allegations. There is no proof that Jordan was actually involved. The allegations were made by a newspaper, the police took no action and the reference document shows that the High Court agreed that they had the right to make this operational decision. I go further and reassert that the official name of the Regiment is "The Ulster Defence Regiment CGC" and the article should be headed as such. Also the link to the UDR Association website (http://www.udrassociation.org/) should be included as it is of extreme value to readers and researchers as well as to private individuals. The entire Northern Ireland issue IS controversial and will remain so for many years. For that reason we should strive to have this article as truthful and balanced as possible and not be drawn into the controversy ourselves. That means not singling out the regiment on the basis of a document which is only "believed" to have been written by British Intelligence - author unknown. For all we know this could have been written by some office junior as a project!

--GDD1000 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The naming policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions) favours "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Ulster Defence Regiment CGC" returns 10 Google hits compared with "Ulster Defence Regiment" returning over 48,000. The regiments full name can be given within the body of the article (customarily, full names are given in the lead section. In the current case I would suggest the lead section is slightly reworded to explain the current name. Viz:
The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) was an infantry regiment of the British Army. It was a locally raised, part time and full time unit, intended to carry out security duties within Northern Ireland. It was amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers, forming the Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Inniskilling) 83rd and 87th and Ulster Defence Regiment). On 1 August 2007 the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was awarded to the regiment for its service during Operation Banner,[1] and the regiment is now allowed to use the postnominal letters CGC as part of its name (The Ulster Defence Regiment CGC).
Look at Brixton Academy for an example of an article named after the most common usage even where the name is officially something else - Carling Brixton Academy - and how the official name is introduced. SilkTork *YES! 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the PDF file? Yes/No (delete as applicable). One Night In Hackney303 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have. It includes the information that the Ulster Defence Regiment expelled quite a number of members who were suspected of having paramilitary links. This information is quite telling but is missing from the article. In my opinion it should be included as it shows the UDR were capable of cleaning their own house - to an extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

--GDD1000 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, so there's clearly much more than "suspicion" if you've read the PDF file. In fact I'll quote direct from it:

The current policy on the discharge from the UDR of men who are involved with the UDA or similar organisations was established in late 1972 and is quoted in full at Annex B. In the period November 1972 to 25 July 1973, 73 men have been discharged for this reason, the cases of 35 men have been placed on the 'Link' procedure (a system of regular review where a possible subversive trace is suspected) and a further 20 men have resigned.

...and further on....

But despite our limited sources and the limited evidence available to us a fair number of UDR soldiers have been discovered to hold positions in the UDA/UVF/???. A number have been involved in overt terrorist acts.

So it's there in black and white. 73 men were discharged for involvement with the UDA or similar organisations, while 35 men who were only "suspected" were not discharged but kept under review. These aren't suspicions, these aren't allegations, these are documented facts from a British Government report, which I have attributed everything to directly rather than state as 100% fact. One Night In Hackney303 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is true, and such information can and should be included. 'Subversion in the UDR' is a rich document, discussion of which can inform the UDR article. The thing to be aware of is that there is a balance, and that information is not picked out to favour one point of view over another. Readers need to be informed of all aspects of this case - even those aspects that one doesn't personally agree with. I'd like to see you guys working together to create that balance. I'm aware from experience that such a balance will not happen overnight, but I'd like to see you both make a start. I've made some suggestions above, including a possible sentence to use, and I'm pleased to see that One Night In Hackney has used the word allegations. GDD1000 is also welcome to get involved in the editing. However, if GDD1000 feels uncomfortable with that, I could offer my own rewrite of the section and place it here for discussion. I won't be able to do that tomorrow as I am out with friends for most of the day, but I could have a look on Monday evening if you wish to take me up on the offer. SilkTork *YES! 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily suggesting that should be included. I'm trying to hammer home the point that the document doesn't just detail "suspicions", it gives specifics. One Night In Hackney303 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This document was written in 1973 when the regiment was three years old and only had a strength of c2,500. The regiment was in existence until 1992 and at its peak numbered c9,000. The document, dubious as it is, is therefore only a snapshot of a greater period in history. Undoubtedly there was probably collusion right up until amalgamation (and afterwards)but we must concentrate on facts and as it stands the document could be read to indicate that the regiment was rife with corruption. The very nature of the UDR did make it susceptible to that however and similar accusations have been made against Crown Forces and the agencies of the Irish Republic, such as the Garda Siochana (which is confirmed elsewhere on CAIN) - none of this information is included. What is also missing though, in the context of the 1973 document is balancing information which shows that the suspicions and proven facts extended only to the rank and file, not the command structure, and that policies were in place to expel those who were thought to have links with dubious organisations. The danger we face is that including more and more facts from the 1973 report will dominate the entire article and detract from its purpose to inform readers what the Ulster Defence Regiment was and what it did. It may be better to concise it to a smaller item for the moment with a clear link to the 1973 document on the CAIN website. I am in total agreement with SilkTork's suggestion that he rewrite whatever he feels needs to be rewritten as it is clear he has no previous views on the subject and would create an impartial historical reference piece. As it stands the article appears contrived to make the reader believe the UDR was less than the respectable and brave force of local volunteers which it actually was. I am grateful to you both for your continued deliberations.

--GDD1000 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)



Leave The Additions Alone

Regardless of your personal views you should not try to interfere with the posting of relevant and verifiable information other than to correct spelling or grammatical errors. If you wish to discuss the content of any additions and its relevance you are welcome to do so. Inappropriate deletions are nothing more than vandalism. If you have serious concerns you should raise them with SilkTork and seek an opinion, as I have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. The addition doesn't match the source, it's full or OR, unsourced crap, unattributed claims, weasel words and miscellaneous other crap that has no place in an encyclopedia. It should be removed now, because it's a disgraceful addition. One Night In Hackney303 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Profanity will not make any of this right. Please leave the additions alone until they are indepdendently reviewed

--GDD1000 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Targeting by terrorists, Collusion with paramilitary’s spot the difference. The whole lot reads like a discussion page and should not be on the article page. --Domer48 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I propose all new additions are discussed here first, given the many policy violating additions thus far. One Night In Hackney303 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The next Email I get like this:

of GDD1000 I will view a as gross personal attack. Now do not email me again. --Domer48 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested the intervention by a third party. If you do not agree with the additions I have made to the page then note your objections and they can be reviewed by SilkTork when he returns, as already stated, on Monday night. If you do not want e-mails from me do not send me messages or e-mails threatening me with blocking. I have the right to ask that this page be put on emergency protection and I will do so unless this vandalism of my additions ceases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent you nothing of the sort so retract that and don't try that crap on with me. You send what ever email you got to an admin now! Lets take this all the way shall we? --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary as it may seem....

Wikipedia articles sometimes go through this cauldron of disagreement, and can emerge stronger and more balanced as a result. But the best way forward is discussion rather than edit warring. Those editing can get irked at content they don't agree with, and then enraged when their own content is reverted. Such editing can be personally tense and upsetting, but it is not uncommon. If any of you guys find that what is happening right now is more emotional than it should be, then it helps to step back for a while. A few hours or a few days. Even a week or more. The article will not go away. It will still be here, and you will still be able to edit it in a few days time. There is no hurry - and if you find yourself with a mad rush of blood to the head wanting to block people, attack people or immediately revert what they have done, then a short break is perhaps in order. You all want (or should want) the same thing - an informative article on the UDR which gives readers the full balanced history. If any of you feel that you want to censor any details, or wish to push one aspect of the UDR over another, then you should seriously be questioning if this is the article you should be working on. There are thousands of other articles on Wikipedia that need help which you could work on without bias.

Of course it also needs pointing out that reverts are not the most helpful ways of editing an article. If content has been added which any of you are not happy with, then try to reword the content, or failing that bring the discussion here to the talk page. No not revert. Not even once. Read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.

I've not examined closely the content of the recent material but I am concerned at the edit warring. I'd like the article to be kept open for everyone to edit, so it wouldn't be right for any editor or group of editors to behave in such a fashion that their emotions were getting the better of them and disrupting the article. If people's editing is disruptive, those involved should be prevented from editing the article rather than everyone is prevented. In short - individual blocks would be a more appropriate response than protection of the article.

I'm going to take a look at the recent edits, and then create a subpage to present my recommendation of how the article should look. I would rather not get directly involved in editing the article at this stage. As I said earlier, I don't think my suggestion will be ready before Monday evening. As there has been a big flurry of activity today, I would ask that everyone have a rest for 24 hours and cease from editing the article during that time. SilkTork *YES! 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't even need to do this, but here's an in-depth discussion of the disputed material.

The argument over collusion between the UDR/Security Forces continues with allegations being made by both sides along party lines as to who was colluding with whom. Nationalist/Republican politicians allege various levels of collusion between the UDR, RUC, British Army and other agencies whereas, (predictably) the Unionist politicians of Northern Ireland insist this problem was never as bad as detractors of the security forces are attempting to make out and that similar collusion existed on an unknown scale between the forces of the Irish Republic and the IRA. Unionist politicians point out that the IRA actually killed more members of the Nationalist community than all the forces of the Crown combined. A transcript of a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly of Tuesday 27th February 2001 reveals that this issue is still controversial.

Sourced by this.
Firstly, GDD1000 himself stated above "The danger here is that the entire article could become consumed by collusion allegations. It may well be best to create a separate page to document the allegations in full. Because all your reference documents contain information concerning the police, army, UDR and other government agencies their inclusion on a specific UDR page clouds the main article and the reading material is too involved for the average Wikipedia reader (but an essential tool for the serious researcher)". This article should only document UDR collusion, not collusion in general. Look at the entire passage, it's full of unattributed claims, weasel wording and information not supported by the source. How about "Unionist politicians point out that the IRA actually killed more members of the Nationalist community than all the forces of the Crown combined"? What the source actually says is "The British Army was responsible for 318 deaths, and the RUC for 53 deaths. Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for the deaths of 735 Catholics. The British Army was responsible for the death of 266 Catholics. The RUC was responsible for the deaths of 43 Catholics, and Republican paramilitaries were responsible for the deaths of 381 Catholics". Now the text added says "the IRA", yet the source says "Republican paramilitaries" - the two are not the same. And given that so much has been done to try and discredit the "Subversion in the UDR report" (including downright laughable claims it was written by an "office junior"), I fail to see why it's suddenly fine and dandy for the claims of politicians to be given so much weight. I don't see the relevance of the entire section, especially given how terribly worded it was and unsupported by the source. Unsourced information can be removed at any time, and that's backed up by the Troubles ArbCom case which does cover this article.
Now for the second addtion:

Once an individual had joined the Ulster Defence Regiment they became a target for the IRA. In some instances several members of the same family were killed. This has provoked much speculation over Ethnic Cleansing and a number of articles have been written by prominent Irish journalists such as Fintan O'Toole in which ethnic cleansing and sectarianism are explored.

Sourced by this
"Once an individual had joined the Ulster Defence Regiment they became a target for the IRA." - not sourced. "This has provoked much speculation over Ethnic Cleansing and a number of articles have been written by prominent Irish journalists such as Fintan O'Toole in which ethnic cleansing and sectarianism are explored" - not sourced. There's one article which doesn't "explore" ethnic cleansing, it mentions it in passing. Where's the "much speculation over Ethnic Cleansing"? Anyone can see that section is in no way supported by the source provided, and it shouldn't have been added.
It seems crystal clear to me that GDD1000's objections to material only go in one direction. He's astonishingly quick to demand rigid adherence to his opinion of what source material says for negative information, but his standards are very different when it comes to information he wants to add, it's generally not in the sources provided. One Night In Hackney303 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative material must be balanced by positive material otherwise it looks as if the entire article is contrived to make the Ulster Defence Regiment appear discredited. My material was sourced properly and other sources were obtainable. I was in the process of editing further sources into the "collusion" piece when the article was vandalised and as a result I was unable to continue the edit.

--GDD1000 (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Negative material must be balanced by positive material," and just what policy is that in? The Ulster Defence Regiment are discredited. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is proof positive that extremist views are responsible for the problems on this article and that it needs protection.

GDD1000 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"My material was sourced properly" - given I've just torn your edits to shreds, making such a bare assertion fails to convince. Also given your comments above of "The Irish News, like most Northern Ireland newspapers is partisan and is not an accurate source" and "That totally rules out Irish Newspapers" it seems somewhat strange that you're using a blog by an Irish newspaper columnist? One Night In Hackney303 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been noted that you have torn the edits to shreds but thank you for the open admission. If you feel able to use quotes from Irish newspapers then you must allow the same degree of latitude to others. Unless your idea of fair play differs from the dictionary definition?

GDD1000 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no newspaper piece! One Night In Hackney303 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Link 6 to http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/may2_subversion_colluson_UDR.php Although Sinn Fein beg to differ - saying that the largest shipments of arms came from South Africa - http://www.sinnfein.ie/peace/document/109/7

--GDD1000 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your so-called "source", please try and keep up. And wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You're saying that a 1973 report that says "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR" is wrong because unionist paramilitaries imported arms from South Africa in the 1980s??????? One Night In Hackney303 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So in 1973 British Intelligence claim the UDR is the best source of weapons yadayada but seven years later Sinn Fein claim the best source of weapons is South Africa. That's all. A shift in emphasis and/or sourcing. Actually I doubt both claims. The UVF were caught red handed transporting most of the South African weapons and as far as I recollect the chain was broken with the arrest of UVF men in Portadown/Armagh but we have relevant documentary evidence to show how the situation changed. I'm not saying that "NO" UDR weapons came into the possesion of the UVF (and other after 1973), merely asking you to concede that the [apparantly] quite dire situation of 1972 was alleviated. Otherwise why would the UVF need to source elsewhere? We all know (or should) they weren't as clever or expedient in their sourcing of weapons as the RA. Loyalist paramilitaries tended to be very clumsy and easily caught. Something to do with bragging in local pubs I'm sure.

GDD1000 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The South Africa connection is well documented in reliable sources, it isn't just SF making the claim. I don't see what addition you're proposing to the article, as I don't see the relevance. One Night In Hackney303 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is proof positive that extremist views are responsible for the problems on this article. With comments like "Negative material must be balanced by positive material," is such a croc, that policies such as WP:V, WP:RS should be thrown out the window because an ex-member of the UDR wants to paint a pretty picture. I don't think so. --Domer48 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read my comments and stop being influenced by old emnities. I am not a rabid Loyalist, no more than I am a Republican. I actually have quite sensible and balanced views. Call me a "moderate" who, because he was brought up in Northern Ireland, occasionally has to discuss issues because of the knowledge that we all have possible ingrained prejudices.

GDD1000 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends what it's being balanced with. There's no case for inclusion of in-depth off-topic information about collusion in general. One Night In Hackney303 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but lets discuss and agree rather than continually coming to blows (metaphorically). The Good Friday Agreement applies to us too - we're all pals now. I even wear a green, white, gold and orange sash now! (joking - I have never been connected to any sectarian organisation). Shows you my paranoia however when I feel I need to point out a joke!

GDD1000 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement doesn't apply to me as such, I'm English. One Night In Hackney303 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one will hold that against you. Shall we say the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement?

GDD1000 (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible intro

It's a tricky article to write to get the balance right and I can see why you guys are arguing! The lead section needs expanding to encompass some of the major points of the regiment which are dealt with in more detail in the later sections so I have started with that. I have a suggestion here:


The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) was an infantry regiment of the British Army formed in 1970 to replace the B Specials of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in assisting with security duties within Northern Ireland.[2] It was the largest regiment in the British Army with an initial seven battalions and then an extra four added later.[3] The regiment consisted entirely of part-time volunteers until 1976 when a full time cadre was added. Due to recruiting from the local community at a time of intercommunal strife, it faced accusations of collusion through most of its term.[4] Even though intended to be non-partisan, and beginning with 18% Catholics, the regiment's image problems with nationalists resulted in the Catholic membership decline to 3% when it amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers, forming the Royal Irish Regiment. On 1 August 2007 the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was awarded to the regiment for its service during Operation Banner,[5] and the regiment is now allowed to use the postnominal letters CGC as part of its name (The Ulster Defence Regiment CGC).


Forgive some of the flat writing - the intention was simply to get out some of the major points in as neutral a language as possible and with some reliable sources. Comments and suggestions are encouraged. SilkTork *YES! 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend a slight change.

Even though intended to be non-partisan, and beginning with up to 18% of members being Catholic [recruits], the regiment's image problems with nationalists resulted in the Catholic membership declining, with only 3% of its members being Catholics when it amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers, forming the Royal Irish Regiment

The BBC say "up to 18%", so we should say that too. Also the slight implication of the previous wording is that 3% was the absolute lowest percentage, whereas the BBC don't actually say that. One Night In Hackney303 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with that - and with the correction of decline to declining! SilkTork *YES! 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with that although in the interests of accuracy can I point out that the decline in Catholic membership was as a result of lack of faith in the regiment after Operation Motorman and intimidation from within the regiment and from within their own (polarised) communities after Motorman. Without checking at the moment, from memory the reduction to 3% had taken place by 1976 and the percentage never rose again. Also, the UDR had a full time cadre from its inception called the Conrate, responible for guarding and running bases. The full time "operational" cadres began in 76 with the introduction of the "Operations Platoons" who were the forerunners of the full-time rifle companies. I don't think I can corroborate the information about Operations Platoons unfortunately so unless you can accept anecdotal evidence (as I was in one) then you may not want to include that.

GDD1000 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reducing repeat mention of "membership". I'd like to hear GDD1000's view - and Domer48 is encouraged to join in the discussion. SilkTork *YES! 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view I can't see a problem with the word "membership". Members of the UDR, members of the British Army, it all says the same thing. An acceptable alternative would be UDR Soldiers which applies universally (to the Greenficnhes too).

GDD1000 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the word itself that I saw as a problem, but the use of it three times in one sentence!
No, as I think you knew, we cannot accept anecdotal evidence. The idea of Wikipedia is that we reflect reliable documented information - we do not originate the information. In order for your observations to be included you'd need to get your observations published by a reliable source first, then we could use that information and cite your document as a source. SilkTork *YES! 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the word appears three times (which I failed to note) by all means edit! As for anecdotal evidence. I'm sure I've read somewhere than input of this nature is deemed valuable in certain circumstances if the originator has an expertise in a particular field? As declared by others in this discussion it would appear I have a certain personal knowledge of the internal workings of this regiment, albeit to a limited extent due to the passage of time.

GDD1000 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You might have misread that we welcome experts on a field. But we don't welcome anecdotal evidence, even from highly respected experts or even an individual who is the subject of the topic. Read Wikipedia:No original research. This is probably one of the most contentious policies on Wikipedia. Academics immediately grasp the concept. The average reader does not! SilkTork *YES! 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia policy and it would appear that non-controversial, anecdotal evidence is cautiously welcomed. Wiki also says that there are no rules and where there are rules they can be dispensed with in the interests of an article. I'm not suggesting for one minute that we flaunt the normal conventions but there are grounds for discussing mundance information which may not be supported by valid sources. I have some links I'm exploring at the moment and I'll put them to you next week. I'm afraid I have other plans for the weekend.

GDD1000 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For inclusion

Also I've got some other info that I'd recommend adding to the article somewhere or other, and in the spirit of good will that seems to be sadly lacking I'll propose it here first.
  • Approximately 50% of the UDR's initial recruits were former B-Specials.
  • The popular Catholic perception of the UDR was a "sectarian reincarnation" of the B-Specials. This, and IRA intimidation prevented them from joining.
  • In a late 1980s poll 89% of Catholics were opposed to any extension of the UDR's role.
  • In the mid-1980s the SDLP said the UDR "has by far the worst record for serious sectarian crimes of any Regiment presently in service with the British Armed Forces".
  • Between 1970 and 1985 seventeen UDR members were convicted of murder or manslaughter, 99 of assult, and "others" (no exact figure) were convicted of charged or convicted of armed robbery, weapons offenses, bombing, intimidation and attacks on Catholics, kidnapping, and membership in the UVF.
  • Only a small fraction were involved in such crime, but the proportion was higher than for the regular British Army or RUC.
Source: Transforming Settler States: Communal Conflict and Internal Security in Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe by Ronald Weitzer. University of California Press. 1990. 978-0520064904. Page 208.
Discussion welcome. One Night In Hackney303 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll bear that information in mind. Some of it would need expanding to make it understandable to the common reader, and a decision would need to be made as to which is the more important. There might be a need for a section on Attitudes toward the UDR / Image of the UDR to include a discussion on the Catholic poll, etc. The image of the UDR has already been raised in the lead, so a detailed section on image would be appropriate. Hmmm. Yes, it could work - and I am picking up from my research that the negative image of the UDR is a significant aspect of this topic that needs sensible and balanced exploration. SilkTork *YES! 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just summarising what was there, that's just the bare bones of it but all the salient facts. One Night In Hackney303 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of ONIH's suggestions. At least 50% of B Specials made the transition, possibly more. I'd go as far as to say they were not "former" B Specials but "B-Men" who joined the new force. With regards to intimidation we should add that there was at least a certain amount of intimidation from within the force. With regards to percnetages of Catholics opposed to extensions of role. I think we have to bear in mind that, with a population mix of roughly 70/30 in favour of Protestants and them effectively trying to hang onto power at Stormont it is inevitable that the 70% majority would be in favour of the regiment whereas the greater number of the 30% Catholics would be opposed. Particularly as the regiment never lived up to its expectation in the number of Catholics recruited and retained. Seamus Mallon's comment have to be taken in the context that the regiment was the only regiment in the army to be constanly on duty from 1970 to 1992. There's bound to be a larger number of complaints as a result and we must bear in mind the UDR's position as a political ping-pong ball between Protestant/Loyalist politicians and Catholic/Nationalist politicians. The crime figures are ok. Proven and acceptable but again the incidences of terror crime should be taken in the context of the regiment's unusual position of being 97% Protestant and on duty constantly for 22 years.

As for your suggestions re image SilkTork; I've already explored that above and I think it's essential that the uneducated reader be aware that Northern Ireland was split on (roughly) religious grounds (70% Protestant and and 30% Catholic). The main perception of threat from the Protestant majority's perpective was that it came from within the Catholic community where the IRA and it's breakaway factions concealed themselves. The vast majority of Catholics had valid concerns after being made second class citizens under Provincial Rule since 1922 and viewed the police force and the army as a means of state control. With that knowledge the uneducated reader can see how difficult and brave a decision it was for a Roman Catholic man or woman to join the Ulster Defence Regiment. Those Catholics who managed to avoid or resist intimidation from within and without and keep faith in the regiment as a legitimate anti-terrorist and peacekeeping force should really be singled out as amongst the bravest. It is also possible then to see why Nationalist politicians made the most (if not all complaints) whilst the Unionist/Loyalist politicians would have declared undying support. In particular thoughwe should be careful of any claims or complaints made by Provisional Sinn Fein. As they are the political wing of the Provisional IRA they obviously have an underlying reason to get rid of (initially) and then to discredit the efforts of UDR soldiers. Much has been made of the 1973 report and it is a significant and relevant part of the article but if we're going to keep quotes from the report in, we must make note of the fact that it was prepared in 1972 and that UDR commanders were already trying to eliminate Loyalist paramilitary elements from the regiment. There is, unfortunately, no such similar report available from post 1973 which could give us a comparison on how the situation improved or deteriorated. I realise that some of this is distasteful to some readers. It's very difficult not to have a partisan view if you are Irish but I am encouraged by the suggestions I see. We're certainly moving away from the initial argmuents and seem to be reaching consensus.

GDD1000 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see lots of conjecture, but no sources. Please, we're not interested in your own analysis. One Night In Hackney303 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources can be provided for anything I've said. You appear to be as well read on the subject of partition and its causal effects on modern Ireland as I am. You will be aware of the same facts as I. The demographics and politcal allegiances are easily explored. A quick search produces http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/connolly.htm#divide and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland both containing verifiable confirmation of many of the points I have made. Therefore I contend that none of this is my own personal analysis, my comments are based on pure fact. Of course where no sources are available to confirm those I will gladly recant.

GDD1000 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This document appears to be non partisan and has different figures for Catholic membership as well as outlining the intimidation they experienced within the regiment. Does anyone feel this is not a suitable document for reference? http://meathpeacegroup.org/events/?p=47 I'd appreciate your views.

GDD1000 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Best avoided. It's pretty self-published by the look of it. One Night In Hackney303 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I realised that. What was interesting was that it came from the ROI, not a Loyalist source.

GDD1000 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We tend to avoid self-published sources regardless of where they are from, or what possible biases they may have. One Night In Hackney303 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

Can we check the validity of this item please which is being used as a reference?

31 July 1975 Harris Boyle (22) Protestant Status: Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), Killed by: Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) Also Ulster Defence Regiment member. Killed in premature explosion while planting bomb on minibus belonging to Miami showband, Buskhill, near Newry, County Down.

I'm aware that this information came from CAIN http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1975.html but I'm confused because I am aware that Harris Boyle was a known UVF member in 1975 and actually ran a club in Portadown (possibly in conjunction with others) which was a known front for the UDA/UVF. The police and army based in Portadown would have known this and I can't see how they would have failed to report this to UDR command. Is it possible that CAIN for once is incorrect?

GDD1000 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the source - CAIN appears to be part of the University of Ulster and as such would be regarded as a reliable source. We tend not to take down information from reliable sources, but if the information has been challenged by another reliable source we would include that. This builds the information - A says this, B challenges it. What we don't do is insert our own opinions or views. It can be difficult (some say impossible!) to keep editorial opinion out of an article because editors will pick and choose what goes in - and by selecting some material and ignoring others a certain slant can appear. This is why it can be very healthy for two editors with different views to edit the same topic. Each addition and subtraction is scrutinised for fairness and impartiality. You and Hackney have an admirable passion for getting to the truth in this article - though it has to be recognised that a single truth may not emerge as the situation was and still is rather complex. We have to bare down to bare facts and leave conclusions to others. For example - fact - Catholic member of the UDR declined. Reason? Well - we can give opinions from reliable sources, but we can't give our own opinions - nor can we direct the reader to a conclusion one way or the other. The more I learn about the UDR the more I realise how difficult this task is! I see a regiment in which - at the same time - there were members who believed in its aims of a non-partisan local community security force, and who were prepared to stand up for those principles, while at the same time there were members who abused the aims of the regiment and stole weapons in order to kill members of their own community. Such an extreme duality in the one regiment is quite fascinating. Like a snake biting its own tail! SilkTork *YES! 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but in this case there seems only to be this reference. I am very suspicious of its veracity. Further research may yield something.

Anything to do with the Irish Question tends to be complex. In many cases weasel words from political and community groups cloud the real truth and the sectarian divisions run very deep. We Irish seem to be a very emotive people too and are inclined to get dreadfully upset if our viewpoints are challenged.

GDD1000 (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition - Music

I have added a small section on music in the regiment. There is nothing in any way contentious but if anyone has any suggestions on how it can be improved or wishes to edit any spurious grammar, please feel free to do so. My memory failed me in the writing of this item and I cannot remember the colour of the silk lining of the pipers' capes, nor the regimental slow march. I will research this later and make the additions.

GDD1000 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources for all your additions when making them. That is non-negotiable. One Night In Hackney303 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In some cases that just isn't possible and we will have to discuss the issue of anecdotal evidence. Many of the more mundane aspects of UDR/Army life are just not catalogued on the internet but I think the article would be richer for their inclusion. Of course these would be non-controversial. Can you give me your opinion on that please? I would be happy if you wrote the pieces with information provided by me or others.

GDD1000 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and now ask for a pause on directly editing the article. I would rather work on the versions already to hand and then discuss alterations on this talkpage without having to deal with simultaneous changes happening on the live article. I am aware that this is a frustrating process, but I am already looking through the history of the article at the changes that have taken place in the past, and it's easier for me if I have one relatively stable document to work from. However, I would like to keep the article open in order to keep to the principle of Wikipedia:Five pillars, and I'm prepared for the extra work that will entail. SilkTork *YES! 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with that, as you can tell by me proposing additions above. Non-controversial additions such as this would get quickly rubber-stamped anyway, providing sources are present. One Night In Hackney303 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to call a halt. I do have plans to introduce more content but am more than happy to wait for your approval and for the content to be dicussed here prior to inclusion.

GDD1000 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Source

This has what appears to be hard information. Dates and names. It mainly contains factual stuff. It is, however, not a reliable source. Sometimes, when creating an article early on I would use information from such a source and quote the source rather than pass it by. Later on when better sources are found, the information can be verified. Or if no verification found, the information can be removed. What do you guys think? SilkTork *YES! 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed that as unreliable, due to the self-published nature of it. There isn't a problem with possible sources for this article, there's enough books and the like cover it. When it comes to random websites with no track record of fact checking or reliability, they are generally best avoided especially in Troubles related articles. One Night In Hackney303 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reservations about its removal. I know the webmaster and yes he's former UDR soldier so the danger is self-evident. It is a valuable reference piece however and is relevant. Perhaps it could be included under the heading "UDR Memories & Tributes By Former Soldiers" with a disclaimer that the source material is suspect?

GDD1000 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The British Government Army site recommends the udr.talktalk.net site for information on the history of the UDR. [2] That suggests a certain faith in the information contained there so I am willing to use that information and to cite the source. SilkTork *YES! 06:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of what I have in mind is contained within this site so that's a big step forward.

GDD1000 (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am working on the history section, and I think it would be of interest to indicate that the first two soldiers to sign up were a 19 year old Catholic and a 47 year old Protestant. I will be visiting my local libraries over the weekend to see what books they have on the UDR so I can back that up with a second source. However I am not hopeful that a library in Kent would have a book on an Irish regiment. I may order one from Amazon. SilkTork *YES! 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

Training: Initially each battalion trained its own recruits locally using the skills of former soldiers and Training Officers attached from the regular army. These courses were as short as two weeks, compared to the regular army's 26 weeks. Specialist courses were offered at army training schools throughout the UK. In the early 1980's a central depot/training school was opened at Ballykinlar Training School near Dundrum, Co Down. Recruit training was extended to three months and some specialist courses such as search team training was devolved to Ballykinlar in facilities which were often shared with regular army units. The most notable of these was the construction of a mock village with built-in booby traps and fixed firing weapons controlled from a tower. Using bespoke conversion kits to reduce the calibre of the Self Loading Rifle to .22", trainees patrolled this mock village using live ammunition.

Operations Platoons: In the mid 1970's some platoons of full-time soldiers were introduced for operational duty. Prior to this full-time soldiers were referred to as the "Conrate" and their duties were primarily to guard UDR bases and carry out administrative tasks. The Operations Platoons were commanded by officers and NCO's who had previous military experience. The rank and file was also predominantly drawn from those who had served with the regular army. The remainder selected from the youngest and fittest men of each battalion. A fitness regime, which had been absent prior to 1976, was also introduced unofficially in these platoons but was later extended officially to all members of the regiment.

Uniform: Each battalion had a unit colour which was represented in cravats worn on duty by Greenfinches. A further display of these colours occurred when the experimental "Operations Platoons" were formed in the mid to late 1970's. To identify the full-time soldiers of these forerunners of full-time rifle companies, each man wore coloured slides on the epaulettes of his uniform in battalion colours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 11:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(I'll get the hang of this signing thing eventually)

GDD1000 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but everything has to be sourced. Proposing an unsourced addition isn't particularly helpful. One Night In Hackney303 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to the section "Music" being updated with: "The Regimental Slow March was Eileen Allanagh".  ?

See above, and sources for that section would be useful too please. One Night In Hackney303 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

--GDD1000 (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of anecdotal evidence I have been blethering on about. Thus far I have not come across an official source (verifiable) which could be used. There is nothing controversial in this, I think you would agree. It is merely background information. "Eileen Allanagh" can be sourced to the Royal Irish Regiment but (unusually) I have yet to find a source which confirms its use with the Ulster Defence Regiment. Could it perhaps be included with a "source required" addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talkcontribs) 10:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Infantry of the Line

I note that another editor has removed the reference to the UDR being infantry of the line. I fully realise why he has done this as the UDR did not sign "to the colours" as other infantry units did and were not on the Order of Battle for the British Army. My own research on this indicates the the UDR did have a seniority place in the "Line". Does anyone have any further views on this?

GDD1000 (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am the "another editor". I am ex R IRISH so I am symapthetic but they are not line infantry. If they are yoy will, no doubt, supply their Line Infantry Number? How can a Regiment created ab initio in 1972 have any line history? --MJB (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I know exactly why you made the change and you have now explained that for others which was very kind of you. This is only a minor point but as you know the term "line" is not only used in its archaic sense. Every regiment has precedence in the line. So in the unlikely event of the entire army being on parade the HCR takes right of line unless the colours are on parade which places Chestnut Troop, RHA on the right, their guns acting as their colours. The UDR would have been far to the left being the junior infantry regiment - so in the modern sense of the "line" would this constitute fair use of the term "Infantry of the Line"? I see somebody has changed it back for the moment in any case but I agree with you and just have that small doubt.

GDD1000 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Working slow

I am working very slowly on this. Partly due to reading around the subject - looking for reliable references, etc. But also because I have just changed departments at work and the one to which I have moved is in a bad state and needs a LOT of my time and attention so I can't edit at work, and I'm tired when I get home. If you guys would rather I sat back from this so you could ask for another Third Opinion I would understand. I wouldn't leave this article completely if that is what you decided, as I have been developing some ideas and approaches and would then - no longer an impartial adviser - directly edit the article. SilkTork *YES! 07:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

History and complexity

Looking into this carefully, it is unavoidable to discuss the political issues behind the regiment and the questions that have arisen. While it is important to have that section on collusion, such matters can not just be shoved into that one section. The entire history of the regiment, and its formation come out of such questions. The regiment was formed on the recommendations of the Hunt Report because of the concerns about the B Specials - and those very same concerns were there throughout the regiments history. The question is just how much background political history can be put into the article. Certainly some needs to go in. An awareness that this was a British force on British territory created to defend the local community from what are termed "terrorist" attacks by the IRA. Yet, also an awareness that for some people living in the community, the British were an occupying force, and that the regiment was a part of the British oppression. SilkTork *YES! 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The history section that I have been working on:


History

Formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),[6] which suggested replacing the Ulster Special Constabulary, and specifically the part-time section called the B Specials which had a dubious reputation as a Protestant army,[7] with a force that would be "impartial in every sense."[6] Given that the stated aim of the regiment was the building a non-partisan force it is of interest that the first two soldiers reported as signing up were a 19 year old Catholic and a 47 year old Protestant. [8] Seven battalions were initially raised, making it the largest regiment in the British Army. Two years later, four more battalions were added, taking the total to eleven. The regiment consisted entirely of part-time volunteers until 1976 when a full time cadre was added. At first, the regiment was 82 per cent Protestant and 18 per cent Catholic, but this ratio had became 99:1 by 1992. The full time element of the regiment eventually expanded to encompass half the total personnel. The regiment was reduced to nine battalions in 1984, then to seven in 1991, at which point Tom King, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced that as part of the restructuring of the armed forces the regiment would merge with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment. On 1 July 1992 the merger was officially complete. On 1 August 2007 the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, the second highest British military honour, was awarded to the regiment for its service during Operation Banner.[9]

Throughout the UDR's history, there were allegations that members covertly aided the loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. Evidence believed to have been examined by British military intelligence in 1973 concluded that while there was "in no case [...] proof positive of collusion" there was however "considerable suspicion".Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

To date it is the only unit in the history of the British Army to have been on operational deployment for its entire history, from the moment it was created until it was amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers in 1992.[citation needed]

Duties

The primary function of the regiment was to assist the police by guarding key installations and providing patrols and vehicle checkpoints on public roads to hamper the activities of terrorist groups. The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations.[citation needed]

As the force was initially predominantly part-time the presence of its members was mostly felt during evenings and weekends. The force was expected to answer to general call out and was indeed mobilised on a permanent basis on several occasions such as Operation Motorman [3] to provide manpower assistance to the police or army.

As the regiment evolved into a predominantly full-time unit it assumed more duties previously assigned to the police or army in support of Operation Banner. By 1980 the full-time element had become the majority and the regiment's role had expanded to include tactical responsibility for 85% of Northern Ireland supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary [4]. By this time the sight of UDR patrols on the streets or countryside of Northern Ireland was commonplace 24 hours a day.[citation needed]


I feel that the Hunt Report needs to be mentioned. I have brought the Duties section into the History and made a new section on Soldiers killed - so that part has been removed. There is more work needed on this section, but I wanted to present to you what I have been working on so far. SilkTork *YES! 09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done an amazing job on this and you've grasped the complexities of the situation quickly and accurately. The article is now filling up with useful, relevant sourced material and is fast becoming the balanced item I had hoped for. I can't thank you enough for all the time you've put into this and I hope my former comrades on the Op Banner site appreciate it too.

GDD1000 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Regimental Association of The Ulster Defence Regiment". www.udrassociation.org. Retrieved 2008-04-13. 
  2. ^ "BBC ON THIS DAY". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-04-14.  Text " 10 " ignored (help); Text " 1969: Ulster's B Specials to be disbanded " ignored (help)
  3. ^ "BBC NEWS". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-04-14.  Text " Northern Ireland " ignored (help); Text " Chequered history of Irish regiment " ignored (help)
  4. ^ CAIN Archive:Public Records: Subversion in the UDR Although initially written in 1973, the report was only declassified in 2004.
  5. ^ "The Regimental Association of The Ulster Defence Regiment". www.udrassociation.org. Retrieved 2008-04-13. 
  6. ^ a b "CAIN: HMSO: Hunt Report, 1969". cain.ulst.ac.uk. Retrieved 2008-04-16. 
  7. ^ "B-Specials - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about B-Specials". encyclopedia.farlex.com. Retrieved 2008-04-14. 
  8. ^ "Untitled Document". www.udr.talktalk.net. Retrieved 2008-04-18. 
  9. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5411706.stm

Moving on

I have added my edits to date into the article. I feel it would be unfair at this stage to hold up matters any longer as I feel I cannot give this task the commitment it needs. I am encouraged by the discussion that is taking place on the talkpage and the calmer approach to editing the article itself. I would have liked to have spent some more time on this and moved more fully into the contentious Collusion section, but I feel that enough progress has, however, been made to feel some sense of hope that matters will continue in a more positive vein. Feel free to get in touch. Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ery much for all your valuable input and help. Please see my further comments above.

GDD1000 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Information removed

I have removed policy violating information which there is no consensus to include. ONIH explained why it should not be included here, and this was never argued against. The information isn't sourced, do not restore this information per WP:Verifiability and also the Troubles ArbCom. Domer48 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The information was not restored by me, it was placed there by SilkTork who, as a third party editor, reviewed everything which was available. If you want to take issue about the information may I suggest you bring SilkTork back into the discussion? Something which I note you didn't do when he actually placed the information there. In the meantime I am restoring the dialogue and request that you cease this edit warring until further opinion has been sought. For the record; I don't see what your objection is. The information gives further verified proof of accusations of collusion. It also gives an insight into the divided political opinions regarding the regiment from politicians within Northern Ireland.

GDD1000 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting SilkTork to come back into the discussion to try and resolve the issue.

GDD1000 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the information added as it isn't properly sourced. BigDunc (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The information IS properly sourced. It comes from the records of a debate in the Northern Ireland regional assembly and is incontrovertible. Have you read the dialogue?

GDD1000 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The argument over collusion between the UDR/Security Forces continues with allegations being made by both sides along party lines as to who was colluding with whom. - not sourced by a single link to a debate, various observations being made about the debate by editors, clear WP:OR.
  • Nationalist/Republican politicians allege various levels of collusion between the UDR, RUC, British Army and other agencies whereas, (predictably) the Unionist politicians of Northern Ireland insist this problem was never as bad as detractors of the security forces are attempting to make out and that similar collusion existed on an unknown scale between the forces of the Irish Republic and the IRA. - not sourced, and "(predictably)"? Would you stop, that proves beyond any doubt that the so-called neutral unbiased editor didn't even properly read what he was adding to the article and as such should not involve himself in the debate any further.
  • Unionist politicians point out that the IRA actually killed more members of the Nationalist community than all the forces of the Crown combined. - not sourced per ONIH way earlier.
  • A transcript of a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly of Tuesday 27th February 2001 reveals that this issue is still controversial. - observation being made from a primary source, that's OR.

And taking it in its entirety, nobody has ever refuted ONiH's argument about its relevance to this article since this article is about the UDR. You said this article shouldn't cover collusion in general just UDR collusion, otherwise Brian Nelson and other British trained, supplied and paid death squads should be included here. BigDunc (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely predictable that Unionst and Nationalist politicians should have opposing views on the subject. I concur that with a [non-practising] Unionist and military background my own thinking could be subconciously twisting the theme of the article and I have no wish to do so. I feel the information is very relevant to a reader who isn't educated on the Northern Ireland situation, we need to demonstrate (verifiably) that opinions on policing are partisan and that the vast majority of complaints about the UDR would, by dint of that fact, have come from the Nationalist camp. The debate took place and if you read it you'll find it's fairly typical of the Unionist/Nationalist argument in Northern Ireland. Yes there are weasel words in it but there's no doubting the accuracy of the link. It also specificially mentions the UDR although they didn't exist at that time having been amalgamated with the Royal Irish Regiment. I do want to get this sorted but this whole concept of edit warring seems to me to be the wrong way of going about it. Can you come up with a form of wording which uses the link and which you think may satisfy the criteria better? Bearing in mind that, although this item was originally written by me, it was removed by ONIH and then restored by SilkTork as relevant and verifiable. GDD1000 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant or verifiable, neither of those points were ever rebutted and if you think they were provide a diff to where it was done please. All that happened was the original addition was added back word for word despite the wholly legitimate objections raised to the addition, wording and sourcing, proving SilkTork should not involve himself in this dispute any further. BigDunc (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I found SilkTork's comments useful. I believe him to be completely neutral, unlike myself and others who all appear to have a conflict of interest - despite doing our best to be impartial. What would you suggest we do to make the item more acceptable? I can't accept it isn't verifiable because it comes from a UK Government web page. There's no way we want to gloss over the controversial aspects of the UDR, we want it presented but in a balanced, verifiable way. GDD1000 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that I have a WP:COI, if so how? I have said all I need to say regarding SilkTorks contribution. He/She is as neutral as all of the editors here except yourself, being as you have declared you had a COI. Also canvassing other editors like you have been doing here and here can be seen to disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia. BigDunc (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You say I can't accept it isn't verifiable because it comes from a UK Government web page. Do you even understand what verifiable means. Almost all the information being added doesn't actually appear on the page in question, it's either being misrepresented or interpretations and conjecture based on what has been said. Therefore it is original research. BigDunc (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The suggest a way of rewriting it so that it's more balanced. I don't mind changing the wording if that's what you consider necessary to make the item better.

GDD1000 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether SilkTork actually realised he was putting that paragraph back in; I certainly see no sign that it was discussed beforehand. There's two questions I'd like to put:

  1. Is the whole paragraph supposed to be sourced from the Assembly debate? If so, it certainly does show the two sides of the house taking different positions, but I would leave out the last sentence: (a) it suggests that only that sentence is being referenced and (b) the debate was over seven years ago, so it does not show that it's "still controversial".
  2. What is the paragraph actually trying to say? That collusion in killing was acceptable as long as they killed fewer in the Nationalist community than the IRA did? That it was justified on the grounds that the Garda colluded with the IRA?

What was the result of the motion? Would it not be more informative to put that in rather than report on a "predictable" debate? Scolaire (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not bring SilkTork back into any discussion, as his position is now untenable and he should recuse from any further involvement in this article. this and the addition of disputed policy violating material show he is unfit to deal with this article any further. If he is incapable of acting in a neutral manner or reading a source, he should recuse now as any further input from him is pointless.
I will reiterate. The material added back isn't sourced for the most part, contains numberous policy violations and is of no relevance to the UDR itself, which you yourself agreed, and there was never any consensus for its inclusion in any form. I have removed it once more, and if any further attempts are made to add back this policy violation I will seek administrator intervention which may result in you being blocked from editing. Domer48 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I worked on the article for some time on a sub-page - User:SilkTork/Cambridge - which involved bringing in some older edits to look at and consider. When I realised I was taking a long time to consider all the issues and that I was holding up progress I made an announcement above - Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Moving_on - that I was bringing into the article the edits I had done so far, and made a note that the more contentious Collusion section was unfinished and needed attention. My apologies that this has resulted in some conflict.
This is now a matter that editors involved in the article should attempt to sort out through neutral and civil discussion without resorting to personal atacks. Assume good faith, and don't jump to negative conclusions. If there's some doubt as to the reason for something, think first that the person did it for good reasons, or neutral reasons or made a mistake, rather than that the person did it for bad reasons. We assume good faith as that helps the article progress. By making personal attacks editing on the article gets distracted into side-issues and it generates bad feelings which cloud judgement.
My strong suggestion is rather than edit warring and doing total reverts, that people look at the paragraph and put it into some shape that people agree with. Adding it and removing it is clearly not going anywhere. If, after a period of discussion and editing thee is no clear agreement on how to proceed, then ask for a Third Opinion. SilkTork *YES! 09:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The onus is firmly on the editor seeking to include content to demonstrate its relevance and verifiability, and achieve consensus for its inclusion.--Domer48 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following on GDD's talk page. I'm putting it here as well for consideration:
To clarify what I said above, I think the debate on the Sinn Féin motion is relevant to the article, but only if the result is known. That it divided along party lines is also relevant, but that there were counter-allegations is not. Perhaps put in something on the lines of (I am presuming this was the result - it would be up to you to verify it):
  • In 2001 a Sinn Féin motion in the NIA calling for an independent public inquiry into allegations of collusion failed when Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist MLAs united in defence of the regiment and rejected all allegations of collusion. (ref etc.)
There you have the ongoing controversy, the division along party lines and the rejection of allegations by Unionists. Don't worry about primary sources btw, they are allowed on WP provided they're used sparingly and used properly. Scolaire (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion to the debate rests on the amendment put forward by S Wilson that the Assemby "rejects allegations of collusion between the RUC Special Branch, British Military Intelligence and Loyalist Paramilitaries and congratulates the security forces, who have striven to uphold law and order in Northern Ireland in the face of a sectarian campaign of murder directed by IRA/Sinn Féin in collusion with others." As per the result on http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports/010227e.htm (link faulty on website) the amendment by S Wilson was "Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly rejects allegations of collusion between the RUC Special Branch, British Military Intelligence and Loyalist Paramilitaries and congratulates the security forces, who have striven to uphold law and order in Northern Ireland in the face of a sectarian campaign of murder directed by IRA/Sinn Féin in collusion with others." Although the UDR does not figure by name in the final resolution the name crops up on several occasions during the debate, as does the Gardai, British Military Intelligence, the RUC and others.

I have no objections to the wording being changed as suggested.

GDD1000 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that as irrelevant. The original motion was..

"That this Assembly calls on the Secretary of State to initiate an independent public inquiry into allegations of collusion between the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch, British Military Intelligence and Loyalist paramilitaries in the planning and murder of Catholics."

It has nothing to do with UDR, so it's got no place in the UDR article.--Domer48 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The debate has plenty to do with the udr - read it.

GDD1000 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just on second thoughts. Why do you think that only your opinion matters here. You say that something is irrelevant so you remove it without first discussing it with others. This is not the Wikipedia way. You are supposed to discuss and agree and then edit where there is controversy.

GDD1000 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The original motion was nothing to do with the UDR, and the debate was about "collusion" not "UDR collusion", which you previously agreed had no place in the article.--Domer48 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I agreed any such thing. The whole impetus of this discussion has been about what is relevant with regards to allegations of collusion and what isn't. It is absolutely proper in my opinion to show to readers that collusion allegations were not confined to the UDR, nor were they confined to Crown Forces and that collusion allegations against the security forces were bound to be more manifest from the minority community. If this cannot be portrayed here then the entire subject matter should be removed to the "examples" section of the collusion page and only referred to in passing on the UDR article with a link to a fuller example on the collusion page - or start a page concerned only with accusations of collusion in Ireland during the troubles.

GDD1000 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to confirm that I made a mistake in adding that sentence. I didn't register that the motion concerned the RUC and army, and not specifically the UDR. Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source removed

udr.talktalk.net is not a reliable source per policy. It is a self published source hosted on free webhosting, and has no reputation for fact checking, accuracy and in addition does not cite any sources. It is either original research self published on free web hosting, or the information has come from reliable sources which editors must track down and cite instead. For controversial articles sources like this are wholly unacceptable, regardless of whether the MoD has chosen to link to them. That changes nothing per policy, and I have removed all references to this source. Domer48 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


UDR talktalk has already been accepted as a verifiable source because it is linked to the UDR website and used as the provider of an official history. Most of the information is also verified on the Royal Irish Regiment's homepage so why didn't you replace the links with a link to there? It could appear to an onlooker that you were deliberately trashing someone else's best efforts without any attempt on your behalf (as a more experienced editor) to assist and guide? As a new poster I am very vulnerable to accusations by you and others of Wikilawyering although it doesn't seem to prevent you and others from doing the same to me on the slimmest of premise. I'm going to run that risk however and I would like to draw your attention and that of other editors to a number of things I'm concerned about with regards to the way your conduct on this page is appearing to me.

Firstly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F I have no objections to discussing anything with anyone, regardless of whether or not their point of view coincides with mine. Are you allowing your own conflict of interest to influence you on this article?

Secondly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing Your constant removal of my work without prior discussion is counterproductive to the success of the article in my considered opinion.

Thirdly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus What concensus have you sought with me on this article?

Fourthly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith You and others have been accusing me since day one of my attempts to edit this article of not being in good faith. At which point, given my protestations, do you actually start to assmue good faith in my efforts?

Fifthly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy I would be obliged if you would acknowledge the guideline that "perfection is not necessary" whilst assisting me in striving to meet the standards of perfection you seem to desire.

Sixthly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#How_to_avoid_being_a_.22biter.22 are you familiar with the concept of "biting" Wikipedia newcomers? Do you feel your treatment of my work is NOT biting me?

I make it very clear to you now that I am not making any kind of personal attack on you. I am however striving to understand why you are continuously removing my work using what I perceive as pretty flimsy excuses. I would be very pleased if you were to try and convince me that this wasn't as a result of your personal views of the Ulster Defence Regiment as stated in your post above which says (copy and paste)The Ulster Defence Regiment are discredited. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) If indeed this is the case, do you not feel you'd be better withdrawing and asking a third party editor with no links to the Irish Question to step in and look at the issues you are concerned about and review any changes I make?

GDD1000 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"UDR talktalk has already been accepted as a verifiable source because it is linked to the UDR website" - no it has not. It is a self published source, and it is unacceptable per policy WP:Verifiability especially for a controversial article.
"Your constant removal of my work without prior discussion is counterproductive to the success of the article in my considered opinion." - your constant addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material is counterproductive to the success of the encylopedia in general.
"What concensus have you sought with me on this article?" - plenty. When I have removed information I have explained my reasons for doing so, and been prepared to discuss. You have merely edit warred to include the information, regardless of which policies it fails.
"You and others have been accusing me since day one of my attempts to edit this article of not being in good faith. At which point, given my protestations, do you actually start to assmue good faith in my efforts?" - when your edits are compliant with policy?
"Do you feel your treatment of my work is NOT biting me?" - I have been remarkably patient with your repeated attempts to edit this article with the use of unreliable sources or original research.
"I am however striving to understand why you are continuously removing my work using what I perceive as pretty flimsy excuses." - I do not understand how you feel policies that are not negotiable are "pretty flimsy excuses".
"If indeed this is the case, do you not feel you'd be better withdrawing and asking a third party editor with no links to the Irish Question to step in and look at the issues you are concerned about and review any changes I make?" - absolutely not. Your repeated policy violating additions are what are causing the problems here. Propose any additions here first please. Domer48 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Self published sources are NOT a violation of policy. Especially not when a link from an official government website directs web users to that site. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

2. Your opinion. I beg to differ.

3. You remove without due cause. No concensus and no leeway. It is appearin that it must be how YOU want it, not according to policy or guidelines which to me you seem to be manipulating. (not a personal attack - an observation).

4. That is not what "assuming good faith" is about. You do not appear to be assuming good faith, you appear to be removing text you don't like.

5. I cannot accept that my sources are generally not suitable. I have provided enough links, many of which have been deleted by you arbitrarily, including the deletion of the link to the official UDR Association website by one editor.

6. Your interpretation of policy is appearing to lack any temperance which Wikipedia asks for from all editors.

7. I don't accept that you have the right to demand that I must put my amendments through you because I am sensing an intolerance about your attitude towards me that has me inclined to think you don't want me to be successful in the editing of this article, particularly if I include information which suggests the UDR was a respectable organisation - you have already stated you believe they are discredited. For that reason I am now officially asking for a neutral third party editor to step in again and make the edits I am asking for.

I have no wish to antagonise you and have put my point of view forward merely so you can see how this is all appearing to me. It seems the only time I can have edits approved is when I involve third parties whose views are not bound by any preconception of the Irish Question. If this is the way it has to be to force change through on this article I'm afraid I must continue to do so over whatever period of time it takes to get mandated change. I'm sorry if that displeases you. It isn't a question of trying to deliberately sideline you but I have explained my reasons. You have exactly the same option open to you but with your greater experience you'll no doubt know that?

GDD1000 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you should have linked to self published sources. It's a self published website on free webhosting, and wholly unacceptable for a controversial article.
You beg to differ that the "addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material is counterproductive to the success of the encylopedia in general"? There's nothing I really need to add to your flagrant disregard for the verifiability policy.
"You remove without due cause. No concensus and no leeway". You add highly questionable material without consensus. Why are you not willing to propose new additions here first, instead of adding policy violations then edit warring to keep them in the article?
"You do not appear to be assuming good faith, you appear to be removing text you don't like." I refer you to your first set of edits to this very article. Also I am wholly entitled to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material at any time.
"I cannot accept that my sources are generally not suitable." The sooner you do, the sooner we can progress. Policy is clear on self published sources.
"Your interpretation of policy is appearing to lack any temperance which Wikipedia asks for from all editors." As opposed to your disregard for policy?
"I don't accept that you have the right to demand that I must put my amendments through you" If you're unwilling to propose new additions here or add reliably sourced additions to the article, it's a bit rich to complain when somone else removes them. Domer48 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and yes you did agree, you specifically said that. At 12:32 on 13 April you said "The danger here is that the entire article could become consumed by collusion allegations. It may well be best to create a separate page to document the allegations in full. Because all your reference documents contain information concerning the police, army, UDR and other government agencies their inclusion on a specific UDR page clouds the main article and the reading material is too involved for the average Wikipedia reader (but an essential tool for the serious researcher). As for the Armagh 4. The reference should remain on the UDR page because it's fact." Now the onus is on you to show how that particular debate (which wasn't about the UDR) is relevant, especially as the conclusion reached by Sammy "Taigs don't pay rates" Wilson is one which was contradicted by court cases before he even said it, and also by the Stevens Inquiry and the independent inquiry organised by the PFC. Domer48 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A gentle reminder

Can I ask everyone to bear in mind the following arbitration committee remedy, which I quote verbatim, as it appears in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies:

3.2) To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below.

Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And might I add another on Reliable sources, and was agreed during the same arbitration. --Domer48 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ministry of Defence website at http://www.army.mod.uk/royalirish/history/the_ulster_defence_regiment.htm carries a link to the UDR talktalk site as the official history source. Is the Ministry of Defence a good enough endorsement for everyone here to continue using the link?

GDD1000 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not and has been pointed out why. BigDunc (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Ministry of Defence website at http://www.army.mod.uk/royalirish/history/the_ulster_defence_regiment.htm carries a link to the UDR talktalk site as the official history source. Is the Ministry of Defence a good enough endorsement for everyone here to continue using the link?" The word "official history" appears nowhere on the page, and the talktalk site is a self-published source hosted on free webhosting. What part of that do you not get. Domer48 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the MoD link is not an endorsement at all, it's the exact opposite. There's a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying "This site contains links to third party Websites where relevant, but the Army accepts no responsibility for the content on any site to which a hypertext link exists and listing should not be taken as an endorsement of any kind." Now let that be the end of it. --Domer48 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If it's good enough for the British Ministry of Defence, it should be good enough for Wikipedia.

GDD1000 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you not read what the site says? It is not an endorsement from the brits. BigDunc (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst there may be a disclaimer, its inclusion shows a confidence from MOD that the source is reliable. Otherwise they wouldn't include it. I find the term "Brits" rather derogatory btw, in much the same way as I do not accept being called "Paddy". Can we keep this dialogue civil please?

GDD1000 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you ever get a grip this is from the editor who says The Irish, God forgive me, are the biggest bunch of sectarian eejits and xenophobes and you find Brits derogatory cop on as Domer says. BigDunc (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, snap out of it! There is a disclaimer. There is no getting around it. Please read WP:POINT.--Domer48 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As an Irishman, born and bred, I reserve the right to self-deprecation of myself and the country I belong to. (note to objectors, being born prior to 1995 I have dual citizenship under Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland). As for your disclaimer, I have no need to snap out of anything. If the MOD are content to use the link openly there is no reason why it can't be used on Wikpedia. May I respectfully suggest you cool down over this. Regardless of your feeling on links, (or anything else) I and others will continue to edit the article until it reflects a true and accurate history of the UDR - with verifiability and within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It will not be, as it was, a simple statement of when the regiment existed and how corrupt it was (by SF standards).

GDD1000 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people are having severe civility problems.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noted this on a number of occasions. I am fortunate to be a very experienced negotiator who doesn't react to taunts.

GDD1000 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"If the MOD are content to use the link openly there is no reason why it can't be used on Wikpedia" - yes there is, it is called the verifiability policy. --Domer48 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept your interpretation of that but don't trouble yourself about it. I will find other links.

GDD1000 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good we are getting some were so as that link is not WP:RS or WP:V.--BigDunc (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent biased editing

Firstly there's the edit, where a Unionist editor adds about the Catholic membership declining because of attacks by the IRA, but neglects to add details of Catholics leaving because of sectarian attitudes from Unionist bigots, which is covered in the same sentence in the same source. Somewhat of a selective use of a source most would agree? Then there are repeated attempts to add weasel wording, despite the source not using the term. The source says "...but this [Catholic membership] quickly dropped off because of attacks by the IRA on Catholic UDR members and because of disenchanment among Catholics about sectarianism among their Protestant fellow members." Therefore Catholics did not leave because of reported sectarianism, they left because they were subjected to sectarianism from Unionist bigots. If you want to claim that it was reported that Catholics left for this reason, then you must also state that Catholics reportedly left because of attacks by the IRA, you can't have it both ways. Domer48 (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly your offensive coimments and insinuations are getting close to being reported. I will not stand for your attitude very much longer. Secondly, you are accusing a group of people of something. That is fair enough, as there are reports of sectarianism in the UDR, there are sources to back that up. What cannot be done, is state that there was sectarianism in the UDR. There are reports of it yes, the source is one such report, there is no evidence presently on the table to show it as fact. There is evidence (in lost lives and elsewhere) that catholic UDR soldiers and RUC Officers were murdered by the IRA for being Catholics in the security forces. One is fact, the other is widely accepted conjecture. But conjecture nonetheless.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Domer48's source says nothing about "Unionist Bigots" so that information cannot be included. It does however clearly state the IRA were responsible for attacks on Catholic members of the UDR. I think that settles that. Verified I would say!

GDD1000 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not without evidence that it actually happened, which is the case for the IRA murdering catholic soldiers, but not for the, it has to be said fact, that there was sectarianism in the UDR. A source should be availaible somewhere, but not presently cited. I'll look tomorrow if no one has found one by then.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was anti-Catholic sentiment in the UDR. I saw it. That shouldn't surprise anyone any more than discovering that the IRA had anti-Protestant or anti-British sentiment. We shouldn't shy away from these facts but must only use those which are relevant to each article. I think you'd agree that the portrayal of political views in this article would be wrong?

GDD1000 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

TU anything anti-Republican is always "fact", wheras anything anti-Unionist is always "reported" or "alleged" or "said to be." Is that the way it is, because your buddy is working on the same lines it seems. You can revert the "reported" now, since since it is clearly state, and not reported as suggested. --Domer48 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way it's not "fact" that Catholics left the UDR because of the "fact" that Catholic IRA members were killed, so your trying to have it both ways still!--Domer48 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is fact. Roman Catholic members of the UDR were killed because they were members. Others were intimidated out by the IRA and in a small number of cases had their rifles and ammunition taken from them. Please stop arguing over semantics and work with the others you see here to provide a balanced article about the UDR. I have no problems doing the same on pages which espouse a Republican or Nationalist viewpoint, when I get round to it.

GDD1000 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Your own prejudices seem to be getting in the way of intprepretating WP policy. That is unfortunate. The assertion that Catholics left the UDR is verifiable because it is verifiable that they were murdered for bveing catholic by the IRA. It is not yet verifiable that they were subject to secterianism, but like I say, a source shouldn't be hard to find. Tomorrow.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Republicanism or Unionism and neither should form the basis on which any information is included. It is an accepted fact that both viewpoints were contributary to the Troubles and continue to be a major source of issues in Northern Ireland. Politics should not be allowed to dominate this article however. I believe it is fair to point out to the interested reader however that the two schools of thought clash and that Republicans will always damn the UDR whilst Unionists will always praise it. For the record I am neither, I support no political agenda in Northern Ireland.

GDD1000 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry TU, you have still not explained why you originally only added part of what a source says, deliberately leaving out the sectarianism of Protestant UDR members. Please do it now. You also talk about facts, yet the addition you have made is now presenting opinion as fact. You have also added a misleading statement. Catholic members did not leave because of "reported sectarianism", that means something along the lines of they read about Unionist bigotry in a newspaper and left the UDR as a result. They left because of first-hand bigotry from Unionists, something that was common at virtually every workplace in Northern Ireland at the time. The only way the sentence can be neutral is if it is stated that Catholic UDR members reportedly left because of attacks by the IRA and sectarian attitudes from Protestant UDR members, which the source says. The source reports both of those as the reason, yet you are choosing to add a weasel word to pretend one didn't happen. Domer48 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And GDD1000, Many UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities as specified in the 1994 Pensions Award to the UDR

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/lawvols/greenvol/pdf/g_2549.pdf

Nowhere in that is that text supported. All it says is that there's a (theoretical) provision for pensions and other grants in respect of death or disablement due to service in the UDR. It doesn't support the text. Unsourced info is getting added left, right and centre by both of you, I suggest you stop. --Domer48 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your comments a put-down in the slightest. I appreciate your advice and guidance and respect your better knowledge of policy and guidelines. All I'm saying is that the security forces of Northern Ireland were active 24 hours a day and that means that after Ulsterisation the UDR full time cadre would have also conducted 24 hour patrols. If they are verifiably listed as doing 85% of the province then can that not stand as gospel?

GDD1000 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


New Section - Both_Sides_of_the_Story

I have included a new section which, at the moment, contains links to two self published websites; one from a UDR man and one from an IRA man. The intention being to show how both sides operated. This may be an interesting place to post other links to personal memoirs of experiences of the UDR. I suggest that for everyone posted to a UDR site, one is posted to an opposing view from a Roman Catholic/Republican/Nationalist. By doing this I believe we can maintain a perspective on how each felt about the other and the feelings of the two communities towards the regiment. Your views would be appreciated. Oh and Domer, if you aren't all that keen on it, or you don't like the links, let's discuss first before entering into another edit war. I'm sure we can tweak it to your satisfaction.

GDD1000 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly now if you want to set up a blog go ahead and do it, this is not a place for hosting personal reflections from your buddies in the UDR and Sean O'Callaghan. BigDunc (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, your allegations fall well wide of the mark. I am not a member of the UDR Association and have no "buddies" from the regiment. I don't even live in Northern Ireland and haven't done for most of my (considerable) adult life. I don't know who Sean O'Callaghan is and don't understand the reference. It does appear to me that you are, and always have been, looking for reasons to tag me as partisan with regards to editing this article. I am not! I am simply improving an article on something I know a lot about because of personal involvement which ended over 20 years ago. I trust this is getting through to you and hope that you will start to display that civility which policy says we are all entitled to instead of making wild accusations against me as an editor. No disrespect intended.

GDD1000 (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that section isn't suitable at all. It's not a question of tweaking it - it's simply unencyclopaedic. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I understand your frustration that the people who oppose you politically are able to use the rules against you, but the only way around it is to learn the rules yourself, particularly what is and is not acceptable on WP, and edit the article in an encyclopaedic way to arrive at a truly neutral point of view. By the way, you didn't actually think readers would believe that one man's recollection of "how he was awarded the MBE" and another man's account of how he was "able to gather information on UDR soldiers ... and murder them" was balanced, did you? Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, no-one is opposing me politically because my motivation isn't political, although theirs may be. Perhaps the item was misguided but I felt it was another way of showing both sides of the story. I'll find another way to do it. Thanks for your comments.

GDD1000 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that W:PV is being used against me here, however W:PV states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: the material used is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Can anyone point out where the deleted material is in contraventio of that policy?

GDD1000 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If we look at the four statements affected by these edits, I would suggest:
  • "The first two soldiers reported as signing up were a 19 year old Catholic and a 47 year old Protestant" is not contentious (once the commentary is removed). The citation should be allowed here.
  • "By the time the UDR became operational on 1 April 1970, it had a strength of 2440; of which 946 were Catholics" is not contentious. The citation should be allowed.
  • "By this time the sight of UDR patrols on the streets or countryside of Northern Ireland was commonplace" is not contentious, but on following the link I cannot find any reference to this fact, so it would be better sourced elsewhere.
  • "This, and IRA intimidation prevented them from joining" is clearly contentious, as evidenced by the discussion here. It also involves a claim about third parties. This would have to sourced from a reliable published work.
That's my 2½d. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to :*"By this time the sight of UDR patrols on the streets or countryside of Northern Ireland was commonplace" - the sight of police, army and UDR patrols on the streets, roads and country of Ulster was entirely commonplace 24 hours a day. The sentence is supposed to illustrate the increased presence of the UDR after Ulsterisation and the recruitment of a permanent cadre. I'd be happy if anyone were to suggest a more acceptable wording? As for "This, and IRA intimidation prevented them from joining" The two factors which keep cropping up on reference sites is imtimidation against Roman Catholics from Protestant members and the intimidation of Roman Catholics by the IRA, although the suggestion seems to be that the IRA murdered some RC members as an example to what could happen to others if they joined. I have avoided putting that in because the article is about the UDR, not the IRA, although I agree that some reference to the IRA will ultimately be necessary because in effect, they were the "enemy". I will try and find a CAIN link for this as I am sure I have seen the information there. Laters though, I have work to do just now.

GDD1000 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The link [5] does have the statement "by 1980 The UDR found that they were doing the majority of patrols", but it is in the middle of a very mixed-up paragraph (beginning "As The Ulster Defence Regiment grew older") which is hard to interpret exactly. You would probably be better to say what the source says rather than (again) presenting your own memories. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see where you;re coming from but my intention is to show the uneducated reader that he/she could expect to come across these soldiers at any time of the day or night. I also need to incorporate wording which shows that civilians could be stopped, asked for identification and searched, possibly arrested. I think we have to show how civil liberties were affected by the use of the Emergency Powers Act with relation to UDR powers and deployment. This isn't a "pride in the regiment" thing, nor should it be regarded as a personal memory (of course it is though, I remember being the subject of this as well as the perpetrator) In my considered view, to give a verifiable encyclopedia of this unit we have to try and show what their effect on the civilian population was as well as their effectiveness as an anti-terrorist force and the political controversy which continued throughout their 22 year history. Would you agree?

GDD1000 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Which is why it is essential to (a) find reliable sources and (b) quote them accurately. My talking of personal memories was not meant as a put-down; it's simply that what you yourself know to be true is in the realm of original research, which is a no-no on WP. The reason is very simple: hundreds of thousands of people will remember the same thing, but some people will remember things that never happened, and some people will say things that they don't remember, so the only way to prevent wrong information getting into articles is to disallow original research altogether. How patrols behaved, and how people saw them, must be well documented in the literature. It's just a matter of finding it and citing it. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept all that but would it not be fair to argue that, as the security situation was a 24 hour one in any case, that when the UDR acquired a full-time cadre they were deployed round the clock just the like police and army? So therefore, a 24 hour presence could have been expected? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a source and I've considered rewording it but I'll see what I can do to improve it tonight. Watch this space.

GDD1000 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a self published source, and is only acceptable as a source on that person, not who they worked for. For example you work for Guinness, you have a web site about Guinness, and you put your views on Guinness on it, they would not be acceptable as a source by Guinness. It’s a self published source. For example, the figures just don’t add up and are highly contentious. Based on the figures you put forward, that would give you a figure of 39% for catholic membership? Come on please. --Domer48 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully realise that the words regarding 24 hour patrols are mine. My contention is that any security situation is 24 hour however and that if the UDR had a full-time cadre then they would be working full-time, 24 hours a day over 85% of the Province (that bit is verified). As for the recruitment figures, they're not mine nor did I post them on the article, but I am sure they can be found on CAIN. I'm not for one second suggesting there should be anything in the article which misrepresents the percentage of Catholics, although I'm sure CAIN also has references to the target for Catholic recruits being 30% (which was never achieved). What do you suggest to clarify these issues? Would you like me to source the recruitment figures on CAIN? Can you suggest a wording for a 24 hour presence which you would find more acceptable?

GDD1000 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This rather pointless discussion is about the source which is unreliable, as it is self published and cannot be used according to policy. I was clarifying how unreliable it is. For example it states that "1 April 1970, it had a strength of 2440; of which 946 were Catholics", and this was said not to be contentious. Given that 946 out of 2440 is almost 39% and the BBC state in the early days "it had up to 18% Catholic membership" a figure of 39% from a self-published website is a highly contentious figure. According to policy the source cannot be used, no further discussion will change that fact. Domer48 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe these figures to be listed at CAIN. Now isn't the time to try and resolve this particular issue however, there is enough going on.GDD1000 (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath Deletions

Domer48 I need to request that you discuss these deletions from the Aftermath section as they seem to be based on the flimiest of premise. A further link has been added from the UDR Aftercare site which brings the reader straight to the wording "While recognizing the important role played by the National Health Service, a specific medical need has been identified for timely physiotherapy and psychological therapies in response to physical and emotional traumas related to an individuals military service." As this site is an extension of the UDR Association site and is UDR specific I believe it is fair to assume the conditions referred to are related to UDR service. Given the continuing discussion here and the amount of effort I am putting into building up the article I do believe you should be less aggressive in your attempts to delete my work.

GDD1000 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#The_Aftermath
"Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities as specified in the 1994 Pensions Award to the UDR [6]and on the UDR Aftercare page [7]."
That sentence still isn't sourced properly and needs to go.
"The regimental association care page [8] gives advice and offers assistance to former soldiers now suffering from physical or mental illness or who are in need of welfare or vocational assistance."
Same with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Aftermath_Deletions
The sources do not say what you are putting in the article, please stop adding unsourced information and/or your own conjecture and interpretations into this article. I have asked repeatedly for you to do this, yet you still continue with your aggressive policy violating editing style. Domer48 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing aggressive in this. I just fail to understand how an item on welfare for former soldiers, with multiple, verifiable sources, can be seen to be in breach of policy or guidlelines. There is no conjecture or interpretation on my part. Soldiers get injured, on and off duty, some get killed, on and off duty. There is a system of welfare established to provide state and charitable benefits and other services to injured soldiers and/or their dependents. The item is absolutely clear and unambigious in this respect and verified by links to the UDR Association, UDR Benevolent Fund, UDR Aftercare, The Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, and Combat Stress (the latter being a charity). All of these make it abundantly clear why they exist. So what on earth is the problem?

GDD1000 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"So what on earth is the problem?" - as I have said above, none of the references provided source the information you have added to the article. If you wish to add text that says "Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities" then you must provide a source that actually says that, not ones that deal with theoretical health care and/or pension provision. Now please either source that sentence properly, or I will remove it from the article. Domer48 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have included another link to the Aftercare pages which opens with the wording "The on-going need to reduce the detrimental affects of military service on the whole ex-member community has led to retention of welfare staff located throughout Northern Ireland in Field Teams. " Does this address your concern sufficiently? Although in fairness I would would assume that the very fact of HAVING benevolent services for ex-UDR personnel in itself suggests there is a need for it.

GDD1000 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities" is needed, nothing less.--Domer48 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Remembrance Day Bombing

Discuss please. What are the objections for this item being in the article?

GDD1000 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Have you even bothered to read the source?

"The bombers moved cautiously in relay teams to evade security patrols. It took over 24 hours to transport the device. Up to 30 IRA people were involved." A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target.

"I don't believe the IRA set out to specifically kill civilians," McDaniel says. "I think they made mistakes, probably with their intelligence on the time-table for the service, but the IRA was reckless about civilian life. Even if the UDR men had been there, they couldn't have been killed without killing civilians too.

Dose that say that the UDR were the target, of course it dose not.

Now I adding a new section, why did you remove the lead title? --Domer48 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The very words you reproduce above "The IRA said that was its target" (the UDR parade on its way to the cenotaph). How can that be ambiguous or weasel words? If the IRA says the UDR were the target - who else could that target have been? You have tagged this item incorrectly.

As for your section heading, I apologise, I did not realise I hade done that.

GDD1000 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this article? If it is too stay then this section will have to be expanded to take in the Miami Showband Massacre. BigDunc (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means include the Miami Showband Massacre. It happened and it's a fact, however I should point out that there is already a piece on the Miami Showband Massacre under the "Collusion" heading. To include the same item twice in the article could be seen as biased? Unlike yourself and Domer48 however I will not delete anything. It is for a third party editor to decide whether or not the items included are relevant or not. You two are making it very obvious that you have an issue with the content I'm including. If it wasn't you two there would (and possibly still will) be others. My suggestion is you allow me to edit the article and request neutral third party opinion. Otherwise this entire sorry episode will just be viewed as another contentious and silly piece of bickering over the Northern Ireland Troubles.

GDD1000 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said before I am as neutral on this as any other editor, and content was not arbitarily removed to annoy you, it was removed per policy, as long as you keep adding content which is in breach of policy it will be removed simple. BigDunc (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now noted that the link to [9] also contains the words " Even if the UDR men had been there, they couldn't have been killed without killing civilians too." confirming that the earlier sentence did indeed refer to the UDR as the target. I think that settles that argument. GDD1000 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP

I am ceasing editing this article as I have called for mediation. I respectfully request that others also cease until the article can be reviewed and recommendations made.

GDD1000 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A Case Of WP:OWN

It appears that GDD1000 feels that he can add anything he wants to this article in breach of policy, and when challenged he asks for a neutral third party editor to review as per policy deletions, I dont see him running to this neutral third party editor before he adds the content he keeps adding. So as far as I can see it is ok to add content but when removed he wants mediation and neutral editors to view it, gladly. BigDunc (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EW

GDD1000 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DISPUTE

GDD1000 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#Please_DO_NOT_bite_the_newcomers GDD1000 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 7 days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors may want to consider requesting help from the WP:MEDCAB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi. I had already made a request today at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

GDD1000 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests to the MedCab should be done as explained here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#How_to_list_a_MedCab_request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

I now invite comments or suggestions which may unite us all in resolving this situation. I am totally prepared to moderate and apologise for any behaviour you may have felt provoked issues on this article. I am relying on the more experienced among you to give guidance rather than admonishment.

Thank you GDD1000 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Protected edit request

{{editprotected}} Please remove the following unsourced information and original research from "The Aftermath" section, as discussed above.

Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities as specified in the 1994 Pensions Award to the UDR [10]and on the UDR Aftercare page [11]which also confirms that the need for these services exist [12]. These men and women are cared for through the British National Health Service. Additional resources are offered by a number of civilian and forces charities such as "Combat Stress" [13].

This is not sourced properly sourced, and should be removed per policy. BigDunc (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I consider the item properly sourced and feel your specific objections should be made on the discussion page with a view to resolving the issues you have with the item. GDD1000 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are relying on proof by assertion, the section has been discussed above, explained in detail why it is not sourced, and you are just ignoring that and maintaining it is sourced. The mere existence of a pension or healthcare provision does not source Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities, a source that actually says that is needed, not conjecture based on the theoretical need for it. Similarly "Additional resources are offered by a number of civilian and forces charities such as Combat Stress is not sourced. You've provided one charity not proved there are a number of civilian and forces charities, and this section shouldn't be a link farm for them anwyay. The section is not sourced and whether you agree or not is irrelevant at this stage, it is not sourced and should be removed. Your repeated failure to adequately source your additions as mandated by policy (a policy which is reinforced by the ArbCom case) is rapidly becoming extremely disruptive. You have been asked repeatedly to do this, if you carry on failing to do this I will again request action be taken to enforce policy. BigDunc (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree to this objection on the basis of what you've given me thus far. Call me short sighted if you want, however, one of the links takes you to the UDR Aftercare site and the opening words on the page clearly state "The on-going need to reduce the detrimental affects of military service on the whole ex-member community has led to retention of welfare staff located throughout Northern Ireland in Field Teams." In your considered opinion what could be the "detrimental effects of military service" in the context of the UDR? would it suggest actual physical harm or mental illness? In either case these are classed as pensionable conditions by the SP&VA to which a link is also provided. They have a list of what they term "attributable conditions" (attributable to service that is). If what you're saying is that the UDR have an aftercare service, the Pensions Act was amended to include UDR personnel and the SP&VA have pension provisions for injuries or other attributable conditions for ex-UDR/Royal Irish, all for the sake of window dressing then we do have a problem. In MY opinion thse facilites would not exist if there were no need for them. I note your concern that I have only shown one civilian charity and agree that was short sighted of me. I would offer to correct that by including a link to SSAFA [14] which is another civilian charity and of course the Royal British Legion [15] which would make up three. Would you agree to that? GDD1000 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I also include for your interest a link to a charity in the Doncaster area [16] in which is stated the following "An injury or condition caused by or made worse by service in HM Armed Forces at any time. This includes service in the Home Guard, Nursing and Auxiliary Services, the UDR from 31/03/70, the Territorial Army, and Cadets (certain cadets are covered by a similar but separate Ministry of Defence scheme)." You will note it states "War Disablement Pension". GDD1000 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In MY opinion thse facilites would not exist of there were no need for them. - well that's the problem. You have not got a source that sources the sentence being objected to. You can't say simply because the facilities exist Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities, as repeatedly explained you need a source that says that. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't helpful, you've been asked repeatedly for a source, and you haven't provided one. So right now let's remove the offending unsourced passage, and if you can find proper sources it can always be added back later. BigDunc (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that totally unreasonable on the grounds that if it walks like a duck, etc etc - it is a duck. As the recipient of a disability pension for injuries received on active service with the UDR I can confirm and prove by e-mailing a copy of the award document to any third party editor who guarantees in writing on this page not to OUT my personal details. Soldiers get injured. It's as simple as that. If I were saying that the injuries were caused by the IRA or "enemy action" then I'd agree with you. Or if you were to suggest a different format for that opening sentence which we could agree upon then fine but please do not keep insinuating that a disbility pension structure is maintained just for the sake of it. It's a fact.GDD1000 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the item should be edited to include the links to other civilain charities as requested by BigDunc. I request that the opening sentence remain unchanged until agreement is reached on the point of order.GDD1000 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained why the information is not sourced, and what source is actually required. I also stated that the information should be removed, and added back if adequate sourcing is provided. You have responded by ignoring this completely, and demanding the information stay in the article anyway.BigDunc (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

<< Rather than fight about that source, would editors make an effort to research other sources on the subject? From a cursory look at available sources on the subject there seem to be plenty of published material about the subject out there. Soe examples:

  • Chappell, Mike; Ripley, Tim (1993). Security Forces in Northern Ireland 1969-92 (Elite). Reading: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-85532-278-1. 
  • Ellis, Peter Berresford (1985). A history of the Irish working class. Pluto. ISBN 0-7453-0009-X. 
  • Coogan, Tim Pat (2002). The Troubles : Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-29418-2. 

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thats great he can do that, let's remove it until it's properly sourced. It can always be added back later, as I've said several times. BigDunc (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with leaving the material in and replacing the source as Jossi suggested. Why does it have to come out-it's the work of 60 seconds? This is a big bone of contention for me. Rather than assist me in adjusting a perfectly reasonable piece you always insist upon deleting my work. In my opinion there isn't enough wrong with it to warrant that. If your only desire is to see the article comply with your interpretation of Wikipedia rules then help me to comply with them rather than using Wikipolicy as a metaphoric bludgeon every time. GDD1000 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest we change the wording of the opening sentence to "Those UDR soldiers who were injured during their service or who suffer from other service related conditions such as PTSD yadyadayada"? Any thoughts on that?GDD1000 (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the editor who adds material to be able to back it up, and since Jossi seems to suggest that the source dose not back up the text and offers the cop out of policy "make an effort to research other sources on the subject," it's my view that the text gets removed untill its referenced. Its that simple. --Domer48 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The rewording is unacceptable, as yet again it is not sourced. Please provide sources, I am sick of repeating this until I am blue in the face. You complain that policy is being used as a metaphoric bludgeon, yet you constantly fail to listen to what has been said and fail to provide sources as requested. I have requested unsourced material be removed. If you wish to retain the unsourced material the burden of evidence shifts to you to provide sources. You have been repeatedly asked for sources, and failed to provide them. Sorry, but enough is enough. Please would an admin perform the protected edit request immediately. Should sources be forthcoming at any point in the future the information can be added back, until then it should be removed as unverifiable. BigDunc (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be consensus for a change. I hope everyone will continue discussion, with the goal of finding a wording that everyone can agree to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with BigDunc or Domer48 on this. In my opinion this item is properly sourced. The point of the item from an encyclopedic perspective is to show the reader that some members of the UDR were injured in service or suffer from other conditions which were attributable to service and to convey how various institutions, civil and official, exist to assist the injured and their dependents. This is not (or shouldn't be) a controversial issue. The various sources which have been supplied show without any doubt that the provision of these services is for the relief of "detrimental effects of military service". Without any doubt this would apply to any serviceman who had an attributable condition, not just the UDR. Many of these facilities are tri-service. What makes it remarkable, and the reason I have included it, is the fact that in addition to the pension and welfare services, the UDR is the only regiment which has a separate "Aftercare" page. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that I might edit the item to reflect that in the future and add sources which confirm why one regiment needs all these extra services however that doesn't detract from the fact that, as it stands, the item is factual, informed, and properly sourced.GDD1000 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to remove information that is not sourced. Consensus cannot override policy, so please removed the unsourced information. BigDunc (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The information is sourced, in fact it is over sourced in my opinion. You don't appear to have examined the links correctly though otherwise you would have found the "eligibility" criteria on the UDR Aftercare page which states, that is it "available to all ex UDR or R IRISH (HS), either part-time or full time, that have an injury attributable to or aggravated by service." [17]Furthermore a link at [18] confirms that "over 640 soldiers were physically disabled and 271 serving and former soldiers were killed directly by terrorist activity." As these are verifiable facts I see no reason why the inference that "some" soldiers were injured flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Now that I have that link however I think it should be amended to reflect the quote by Colonel Campbell. Anyone have any objections? GDD1000 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The link at [19] confirms the data only this time it's by General Sir Richard Dannatt. Discuss please?GDD1000 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not done for now - there appears to be no consensus to remove the material (you might like to read meta:The Wrong Version). Vis "consensus vs policy", WP:CONSENSUS is very clear: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making... Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it". So yes, consensus does overrule policy. Happymelon 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus cannot overrule policy, ever. If you want to change policy you have to change it on the policy page, you cannot do it on an article talk page. The information is unsourced, therefore I insist you remove it per the verifiability policy, as there can be no consensus here that the verifiability policy does not apply to information. Read the correct part of WP:CONSENSUS please "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Consensus among a limited group of editors can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale." - you cannot establish a consensus outside of existing Wikipedia policy, so please enforce existing policy.--Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove the following unsourced information and original research from "The Aftermath" section, as discussed above.

Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities as specified in the 1994 Pensions Award to the UDR [20]and on the UDR Aftercare page [21]which also confirms that the need for these services exist [22]. These men and women are cared for through the British National Health Service. Additional resources are offered by a number of civilian and forces charities such as "Combat Stress" [23].

This is not properly sourced, and should be removed per policy.--Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It needs alerted for tone, but it seems to me to be perfectly well sourced.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not done There is no consensus, to use your favourite word, that the material is in fact unsourced; and as it is not BLP-related, there is therefore no policy which requires its removal. The point is not that WP:V can be suspended for this article alone based on a "consensus" of editors on this talk page, as that is of course ludicrous. The point is that, when there is concern over an issue of policy, it is not decided based on a legalistic interpretation of said policy but by consensus and common sense; our guidelines are enforced by a consensus of editors agreeing when articles or phrases are in contravention and working to improve them (or, when necessary, removing the contravening phrases), not by individual editors unilaterally deciding that a policy "must" be "enforced" through a particular action. Instead of "insisting" that your interpretation of the situation, and of the relevant policy, is correct and unquestionable, I suggest that you listen to the opinions of the other editors who have commented in this discussion (and discuss the issue rationally if you believe them to be mistaken), and form a consensus as to whether there is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. Happymelon 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You cannot have a consensus that it is ok for a source to say one thing, and an article to say something else completely. Either the source supports the text, or it does not. On this occasion, the sources do not support the text and it should be removed. It is nothing to do with legalistic interpretations of policy, it is citing sources accurately. The sources are not being cited accurately, unsourced conclusions are being drawn from them. Therefore it should be removed per policy. Simply because the editor who added it does not agree is irrelevant, the burden of evidence is on him to prove it is properly sourced. I don't agree or I think it's sourced are not valid, and are the cause of this fiasco in the first place. Instead of actually enforcing policy, admins do nothing except protect the page, and still refuse to enforce policy when it is protected. Consensus is not needed to remove unsourced material, that is a fact. You may as well unprotect the page now, as otherwise it is going to be a pointless week of that is unsourced, no it's not, then when it is finally removed it's guaranteed to be added right back, and what will happen then? Simple, instead of dealing with the cause of the problem, some admin will come along and refuse to enforce policy, bury their head in the sand, and protect the page. And we will be right back here again, wasting time. Please enforce policy, or unprotect the page. BigDunc (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is no consensus, to use your favourite word," was that directed at me? Now I'll type slowly if you can't keep up. Either the source that is used supports the text, or it does not. Now here is a novel idea, read the source and see if it supports the text? I know that involves actually having to do something, like enforcing policy, but hey, if you have a mop you might as well use it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Miami Showband Massacre

Can anyone explain why this item appears twice in the article? In my opinion too much weight is being applied to the involvement of 2 soldiers out of the 44,000+ who were members of the regiment during its history. One piece of dialogue should be sufficient. GDD1000 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a case to be made that it is reasonable to have it in both places. However, the way the first instance is worded, there is actually no mention of collusion. Two soldiers who were also terrorists involved in a sectarian murder is not institutional collusion, just as one member being a Nazi does not make the Royal Family fascist.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not how I'm reading it. Under the heading "Allegations of Collusion" comes the wording "Two UDR soldiers, who were also members of the Ulster Volunteer Force, were convicted of the 1975 killing of three members of the pop group the Miami Showband in a UVF attack.[21]" A link Miami Showband is provided to the full story. I feel this has been included as a counterweight to the Remembrance Day Bombing. It could be argued that a simple link to the Remembrance Day Bombing on wikipedia might be enough however the item remains unfinished as it kept getting deleted. I have sourced pictures of UDR personnel assisting the wounded and intended to include those as an illustration of the UDR at that event.GDD1000 (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For your own information, you can create any pages on your userspace you want. So for example if you create User:GDD1000/UDR, you can copy and paste the text of the current article or part thereof there and make edits in order to propose changes when the protection expires. I think you should do that to engender some discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It's something I wasn't aware of. GDD1000 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Contention

The discussions on this page are rather messy at the moment. Could we have a simple list of the matters that are disputed below please?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. - The intended target of the Remembrance Sunday bomb.
  2. - The inclusion of the Miami Massacre twice.
  3. - The verification of the sources in the Aftermath section.

Contention discussion

Almost every policy violation that has been added by the former UDR member with a conflict of interest that is not reliably sourced or is original research. Given the many discussions above have him still refusing to work within Wikipedia policy, further discussion is unlikely to come to any meaningful conclusion. Either he works within policy or he doesn't, more of the same is pointless. BigDunc (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be constructive. It would be helpful if you could list the contentious issues.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
TU as you said I dont like repeating myself. It's increasingly difficult to be constructive. I patiently explain why things are not acceptable, and get ignored. Either he is willing to work within policy, or he isn't. Until he is, there is no point discussing anything. BigDunc (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates by concensus by discussion. You have two options here, you either engage in constructive discussion, or your retire from this article. Please the contentious issues you have so we can begin.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, as consensus cannot overrule policy. Therefore if he's unwilling to follow policy, any discussions about it are pointless. To paraphrase you He has two options here, he either follows policy, or he retires from this article. BigDunc (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So we can take it from that you have no contentious additions to raise here then? You cannot refuse to engage in discussion and then object to changes to the article.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already stated what the contentious additions are. Until there is a confirmation that he will follow policy, any discussion is pointless as can be seen above. Also he cannot refuse to follow policy and edit the articleBigDunc (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm making an effort to move this forward, if you aren't willing to engage, the problem becomes you.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Until there's a commitment to follow policy it's impossible to move forward. So you're talking to the wrong person, unless of course you're in favour of disregarding policy. BigDunc (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Throwing accusations around wont help anything. You're being particularly obstinate, especially in the context of an experienced editor interacting with a new one.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunc its pointless to carry on this discussion, they either abide by policy or it gets removed. --Domer48 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Two obstinate editors is not better than one.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have explained repeatedly why certain things are not sourced. All I receive in return is claims they are, yet you say I am obstinate? I point out policy violations, and in return I get nothing but claims they are not policy violations. What more do you suggest I do? Any discussion about any item will go exactly the same way, refusal to follow policy. And please be civil and less of the personal attacks, I have not attcked you so I expect the same. BigDunc (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you asking me to suggest what you should do? Is that not obvious? What I suggest you do is list the items of contention in a simple list so that we can begin work through them like civilized people. I proposed this resolution two hours ago and you have thus far, with the greatest of respect, done nothing but moan.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And even before you started this discussion I have been saying that unless he is willing to follow policy this is going nowhere fast. Any discussion must take place without the boundaries of following policies, not ignoring them arbitrarily. At the moment his approach is orthogonal to that which is conducive to discussion, so you are still talking to the wrong person. BigDunc (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
what "he" is doing is of no bearing while the article is protected. Now either you are prepared to follow policy and engage in discussion, or you are not, in which case on your own terms you are as bad as he is.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to engage in discussion, providing there's a commitment to follow policy. In every discussion that has taken place so far policy has been ignored, so it's a specious and capricious accusation to make against me, when yet again you are talking to the wrong person. How many more times do I have to explain this to you? BigDunc (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The page is protected, so regardless of anyone else, discussion is the only option open to all editors. I find it bizarre that I'm trying to persuade an experienced editor into discussing additions to an article. Now please, stop this naval gazing and outline what you think the issues are.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, I am only willing to have a discussion that is in line with policy. Therefore any further badgering of me is pointless, I am not the editor that refuses to follow policy. We have seen in the discussions above that when an editor refuses to follow policy we go round in circles due to that editor, so please address your comments towards him, why are you not attempting to help the inexperienced editor? BigDunc (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are refusing to engage in discussion, you are therefore refusing to follow policy. I've tried to move this dispute forward, to be met with a blind refusal for spurious reasons.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop lying. I am refusing to engage in discussion if policy is ignored, which it has been in every discussion so far. There is no policy that states I have to waste time engaging in discussion that has no basis in deciding the content of this article or anything related, as content is decided by policies and guidelinesBigDunc (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You stated I am refusing to engage in discussion. That is clearly not true, so you were lying. That is a statement of fact. My conditions for discussion have been explained repeatedly and at length, yet you seem intent on harassing me until I take part in a discussion that ignores Wikipedia policy which I have no intention of doing. BigDunc (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am yet to read the policy that allows editors to register preconditions before they will engage in discussion. Please enlighten me. Also, please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop trying to bully me into entering a discussion that ignores Wikipedia policies wholesale. Such a discussion is a waste of time, and has no bearing on the content of the article. Why are you not attempting to get the editor that refuses to follow policy in discussions to do so, then everyone is happy? I've asked you several times, yet you keep dodging the question? BigDunc (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to move this forward. Not much more that I can do.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also for the enlightenment you seek see WP:CONSENSUS. When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. I am not willing to have a discussion outside of that framework, end of. BigDunc (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record: I have clearly stated on more than one occasion that I made mistakes when I first joined Wikipedia. I have apologised for that and unreservedly do so again. I am still a relatively new editor with scant knowledge of policy but I am learning, and fast. As a man with more than a modicum of common sense I have been able to glean enough from policy and guidelines to believe I am entitled to a certain amount of guidance and assistance from more experienced editors. Anyone who reads my edits or my discussion points will see clearly that I am endeavouring to create useful items but am frustrated by the apparant trashing of my work. For example: I have supplied a number of links with regards to the Aftermath piece which confirm that "over 640 UDR soldiers were disabled". To any reasonable person my logic tells me that would mean that "some" but not "all" members of the regiment were disabled. I have even suggested the opening sentence be replaced with the words "Over 640 UDR soldiers were disabled during their service". Verified by the quotes from Colonel Campbell and General Dannitt. It is rather disconcerting then to come back to the discussion page and find that my offer hasn't even been considered and that Domer48 and BigDunc are still calling for the removal of the item. I find myself wondering, and not for the first time, why this might be? What is the need for this constant bickering over this article and this piece in particular? This isn't oneupmanship, nor should it be. I am trying to be as obliging as possible and adhere to policy but, whilst I certainly seem to be receiving a fair hearing from some and getting some much needed assistance, I feel that the objections are merely to thwart my best efforts. GDD1000 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress?

Are we any further forward on this? Any agreement or concensus so we can have the edit ban lifted and start working in concert to improve the article?GDD1000 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the two sources most disputed are good but the sections themselves are not useful. On Enniskillen, there clearly is a reliable source that says that the IRA said that the UDR was the target. But is that a sufficient hook for a whole section on the bombing? I don't think so. In the event the UDR were not attacked, so their involvement was peripheral. It's good for a single sentence in "History" at best (the same holds true for the Miami Showband). Likewise the cited source is good enough for the assertion that some UDR soldiers were injured, but a section on a care package is not really awfully relevant to the article. I doubt if you'd find a similar section in an article on American combat troops, or other British regiments that have seen action. On the 946 catholics, I have to agree with Domer that the figure is totally at odds with the figure of 18% quoted elsewhere (I didn't do my sums before saying earlier it would be uncontentious), and I'm afraid it does call into question the reliabilty of talktalk as a source, at least as far as recruitment statistics are concerned.
As far as improving the article is concerned, a lot could be done by way of re-arranging the sections and tidying up the layout. If you look at the contents you see that it jumps from history to music to allegations of collusion (history) to notable members to Enniskillen and Miami (history). One paragraph on collusion is reproduced verbatim in another section. This is largely due to information being added on an "and another thing..." basis. I believe that acheiving a balanced view would be easier with a bit of judicious editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the Aftermath section should come out. It is just a linkfarm for various care associations, any relevant information should be incorporated into another section. BigDuncTalk 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the Aftermath section should come out, relevant information should be incorporated into another section.--Domer48 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But does either of you agree that the whole article needs to be re-formatted, and is either of you willing to attempt this? Scolaire (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The section containing the Enniskillen item was the first in a series I planned on attacks against the UDR by the IRA. I am gathering information on the attack on the Deanery in Clogher in the early 70's when the IRA actually mounted a strong offensive (up to a 40 man team)against a defended position. Perhaps we could call this section "Attacks", or something similar? We could also include attacks by Protestant paramilitaries against armouries? Yes I agree the format could be improved and perhaps I will do this when the dust settles on these petty disagreements. I'm glad you feel the sources are ok and verifiable. The issue over the UDR "aftercare" section is that it's the only regiment of the British Army to ever offer this depth of care and is related to the fact that the regiment was on continuous duty throughout its existence, the only regiment ever in this unique position. As a result their casualty rate was significantly higher than other regiments. Again, uniquely, the fallen and injured were all Northern Ireland residents, the vast majority born and bred there. I'm open to all offers of help while my technical skills improve.GDD1000 (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to attempt to re-format first rather than wait till "the dust settles on these petty disagreements." Putting the article in order will provide a context in which the current content disputes, and any future additions, can be more easily judged. For instance, bringing history, members killed, information cards, attitudes and image, and allegations of collusion all together in one coherent section will make it far easier to write about "attacks" or anything else in a clearly understood context. In other words, temporarily take out anything that doesn't have widespread acceptance, re-order the article so that is easier to follow, and then see where and how relevant information can be usefully added back. There's very little point in cooling your heels for a week, then jumping back into the edit war at exactly the same point, and if you choose to remove the information yourself you will have no cause to feel victimised, and you will then be in control of how it is added back afterwards and better able to justify it. Remember that if an edit-war starts again, tomorrow or later, there is a good chance the Mediation Cabal will decide to get involved. But it would not be clever to trigger a war just in order to bring them on board, nor would it make them particularly well disposed towards you. BTW, in saying that I am not 'blaming' either side for the current dispute, just pointing out that it always takes two. Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Another thought: It might be worth getting advice from Traditional unionist (talk) on how to set up a user subpage, as he did for his Remembrance Day bombing draft. That would allow you to edit the article at your own pace and add pretty well what you like, and then ask people's advice before adding it to the article proper. Just a thought. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have considered that and have noted TU's advice and his example. I haven't done anything yet because I'm waiting to see what happens when this ban expires.GDD1000 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to get a definitve answer on this source: http://www.udr.talktalk.net/ some users are claiming it to be self published and of no use. I say because there is a link to it from two official government websites that the link is safe to use for sources.GDD1000 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I said above: on the 946 catholics, I have to agree with Domer that the figure is totally at odds with the figure of 18% quoted elsewhere (I didn't do my sums before saying earlier it would be uncontentious), and I'm afraid it does call into question the reliabilty of talktalk as a source, at least as far as recruitment statistics are concerned. Note that to link to a site is not to verify the accuracy of the information on it. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree that those figures seem wrong but I'm almost positive they're lifted from CAIN - which we do see as a reliable source. What I'm after here is being able to use some of the other historical info on the site. GDD1000 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. CAIN has a very good search engine, and no matter what way I search e.g UDR catholics 1970 I can find no reference to the numbers of Catholics in 1970 or any other time before 1992 (7.78%). What it comes down to then is that if a UDR page doesn't even have accurate figures for its own strength at any given date, it's unsafe to trust any information unless it can be verified elsewhere, in which case why not just source it elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Those figures came from somewhere. We'll find them GDD1000 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Recruitment

I have found an article [24] which supports the recruitment figures given by the talk.talk page. It puts the RC membership at 25% which still doesn't balance but its independent corroboration that those figures are out there somewhere. GDD1000 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They're out there, all right, but it's very clear, to me at least, that the origin is talktalk. As you point out, the writing is very sloppy, with the two completely contradictory figures (25% and 946/2440) one straight after the other. Then he takes talktalk's 19 year old Catholic and 47 year old Protestant and dresses it up with "in a moving ceremony, pregnant with new hope..." He doesn't even pretend to have been there, or to have spoken to someone who was! This is the problem with web-based sources - they perpetuate themselves; once they're "out there" journalists, bloggers and others will pull them off without even asking themselves "is this plausible?" This is not to say that talktalk is lying - a figure could be wrong even though the original author wrote it correctly. For instance, might the original figure not have been 946 out of 4240, or 469 out of 2440?
Almost a month ago Silktork said: "This has what appears to be hard information. Dates and names. It mainly contains factual stuff. It is, however, not a reliable source. Sometimes, when creating an article early on I would use information from such a source and quote the source rather than pass it by. Later on when better sources are found, the information can be verified. Or if no verification found, the information can be removed." I think we'll have to accept that we haven't found the verification in better sources.
A week ago jossi said: "Rather than fight about that source, would editors make an effort to research other sources on the subject? From a cursory look at available sources on the subject there seem to be plenty of published material about the subject out there." I have yet to see any evidence that any editor has read any of the three books he suggested. How do you know the recruiting figures and other info is not in there? Note that while I am putting a certain amount of work into helping editors to produce a more informative article, I have no intention of doing the reading or writing for you. Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the item I put forward is from the Irish News, I'd say that makes it informative. I've no wish to have you write the article and I'm sure others would agree. I find myself wondering though why one newspaper source might be verifiable and yet another not? GDD1000 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the reason I said. You can say that the Irish News is a reliable source and according to the guidelines it is, but you and I both know that that article is sloppily written and that no proper research went into it, so all we've got is a lazy journalist who took figures uncritically from talktalk being used to verify talktalk as a reliable source. You have to ask yourself what you actually want: that a piece of dubious info gets in on a technicality or that somebody (and who better than yourself) actually does the donkey work of reading up what are commonly accepted as reliable sources - books, official documents etc. Are the recruitment figures for 1970 published? If so, why can't we find them in a published source and if not, where did the figure in talktalk come from and why should we trust it? It's not rocket science!
Now, I don't want to guillotine this discussion or anything, but you began it with a straightforward statement: "We need to get a definitive answer on this source". You have my unequivocal answer. I have backed it up with quotes from neutral third-party editors. You know Domer48's and BigDunc's answer. There has been no contrary argument. Is it not time to accept that we have a definitive answer, and move on to looking for published sources that everyone will agree are reliable? Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the figures from the Irish News article were taken from the talk.talk site. If you don't mind I'd like to point out something which was said elsewhere on this discussion: it isn't truth we're after here, it's verifiability. As you rightly said the Irish News is a verifiable source, it's also used elsewhere in the article. From where I'm sitting that makes the item verified and by dint of that it also verifies the talk.talk site. If I were to reply on BigDunc and Domer48 then I wouldn't be getting anywhere on this article and that is no disrespect to them. They obviously have different views to me and that's why we're in dispute.82.41.187.226 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't noticed I wasn't signed in for the above reply. However, in relation to Roman Catholics in the UDR I can confirm that the figures originated in parliamentary debate. I presume you will accept Hansard as a source? http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665 The original figures were 1157 RC recruits of which 946 were accepted. I think that proves the talk.talk site to be accurate, don't you?GDD1000 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That link does not support your assertion that 1157 Catholics attempted to join the UDR, nor that 946 were recruited. And has been said repeatedly, self-published sources are unacceptable under the verifiability policy, no amount of discussion will change that. Domer48 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats a digitized version of Hansard, which is a very reliable source. All it needs to verified from a paper copy that the figures have been copied properly. Most good libraries have copies.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please will you and other editors read the source properly. Nowhere in Hansard does it state 1157 applied to join the UDR, or that 946 were accepted. What it says is that the total number of applicants was 946, not the number of recruits. Nowhere in the Hansard link does it state that 946 of the initial recruits were Catholics. Domer48 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I never made the assertion you seem to think I did. I just pointed out that this is indeed a reliable source.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying the talktalk source is un-reliable, and I think you will agree that Hansard illustrates that quite well. --Domer48 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, I've put two additional sources in now and you find neither acceptable? One of them being a written transcript from parliament which says "The total of applications to join includes 15 who have not yet been allotted to a county battalion and 946 from Roman Catholics." Note: 15 NOT ALLOCATED TO COUNTY BATTALIONS - which means the rest were! To suuport that here's another link from Hansard which stes that 22% of applications came from Catholics http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/apr/15/ulster-defence-regiment#S5CV0799P0-06007 categorically stating "1,157 [applications] were from Roman Catholics". Is that good enough for you? Or do you still find Hansard "unreliable"?GDD1000 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, so the source as of 23 March 1970 says that the total Catholic applicants was 946, and it does not say they had been recruited. The source from 15 April 1970 says that as of 10 April 1970 1157 applications from Catholics had been received. So in between one answer and another more applications had been made - nowhere does it states the actual number of Catholic recruits. Also your assertion that the Catholics had been recruited is incorrect - the 15 are mentioned to cover the discrepency in the tables. The applications by county are as follows - 575+615+797+460+471+671+1,187=4776, whereas the total applicants is 4791 shown at the right. That's why the 15 is mentioned. However if you add up the total recruits by county - 221+370+378+229+223+382+637=2440, which is an exact match and shows the 15 mentioned were not recruits only applicants, so your attempt to claim that as the 15 mentioned were recruits not applicants has failed. Domer48 (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your links. This is exactly what I was aking for. So now we have (some) official figures: On 23 March 1970 there had been 4791 applications to join from the six counties and Belfast, of which 946 were from Roman Catholics (19.7%). 2440 applications had been accepted, but there is no figure for applications from Catholics accepted. If a proportional number of Catholics and others (presumably = Protestants) were accepted, that would make it close to the 18% quoted elsewhere in this article. The proportion of Catholic applicants on 10 April was 1157 out of 5630, or 20.5%. So here we have verified figures, and they show, as I suspected, that the talktalk figures were miscalculated. It says that 946 Catholics were members, out of a total strength of 2440, when in fact 946 Catholics had applied out of a total of 4791, and an unknown number of Catholics had been accepted out of a total of 2440. Note that strictly speaking, 2440 acceptances is not the same as the strength of the force at that date, although in practice there was most likely close to that number serving by summer 1970. So do you now think it coincidence that the Irish News reporter misread the figures in exactly the same way, or are you prepared to accept that he most likely found them on talktalk? More to the point, are you now willing to take the trouble to search for similarly reliable sources to verify other facts on talktalk, given that SilkTork said a month ago that this is the proper way to do it?
I would like now to propose that the current text be replaced with: "By the time the UDR became operational on 1 April 1970, there had been 4791 applications to join, of which 946 were from Catholics and 2424 from current or former members of the B-Specials. 2440 had been accepted, including 1423 from current or former B-Specials.<ref>http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665</ref>" If there is agreement on this we can request that the edit-protected page be edited accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The website isn't RS in its own right, its a reproduction of unknown quality of a reliable source. It would need to be referenced with a Hansard citation, with perhaps the URL added after.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I am confident of the Hansard figures I see no reason why Scolaire shouldn't edit as proposed. 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)GDD1000 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It can. I'm just saying that when the citation is given it needs to have the full hansard citation first, then the URL.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you think then I don't have an issue with it. GDD1000 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have objections that proposed wording. We don't know the figures for 1 April, as the earlier figures are not actually dated but were reported on 23 March. So that would make the proposed wording inaccurate. BigDuncTalk 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the problem with that but I have takaen steps to try and clarify the picture further. I also have recruitment figures from later that year and for subsequent years but including all of that is going to need a major rewrite, which I think we've all agree needs done anyway. Can other editors edit my workpage btw at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDR? It might be useful if we could make the modifications there, do a full rewrite then completely relaunch the page?GDD1000 (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done the edit, working in TU's and BigDunc's requests, here. The new text is:
"By March 1970, when deputy Minister of Defence [[Roy Hattersley]] answered questions in the House of Commons, there had been 4791 applications to join, of which 946 were from Catholics and 2424 from current or former members of the B-Specials. 2440 had been accepted, including 1423 from current or former B-Specials.<ref>[[Hansard]], 23 March 1970, reproduced in ''millbanksystems.com''[http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665]</ref> "
Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

UDR Work Page

I'm starting a new section here to deal with the edits on the work page. What Scolaire has done is acceptable to me as it comes from Hansard. Anyone have any objections? Anyone want to tidy up repetition or add any new links, remove any suspect links?GDD1000 (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some further edits affecting the structure of the article. In particular I have removed the separate Miami Showband item and highlighted it under the Collusion piece. I have grouped the Enniskillen bombing (and reworded it) under a new heading called Attacks on the UDR and I have started two other pieces in there which I will work on later which will further justify that heading (or something similar). The Collusion item and the Attitudes and Images piece I have moved to the bottom because I think the detail on the regiment should come first, then the discussion on collusion etc etc below that.GDD1000 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further information/edits done. See history page. Comments invited.GDD1000 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put that paragraph into the article proper, and I'm now going to withdraw from the discussion and unwatch the page. Happy editing to all of you :-) Scolaire (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Scolaire. Can I ask everyone involved in the dicussion to make their initial edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDR so that the changes we all want to make can be agreed. I note that BigDunc is wading in again to make edits to the main article, not necessarily agreed.GDD1000 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of editing out repetitive material, including new sections, adding pictures and generally tidying this article up whilst trying to maintain the balance we all seem to desire. I once again invite comment from interested editors. I will hopefully start to replace entire sections of the article over the weekend and would like this to be a smooth process with any glitches sorted out before I edit the main article. I am keen to avoid any further edit warring and respectfully ask for co-operation in advance.GDD1000 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The work page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDRGDD1000 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

In the absence of any comment from those I have invited to do so I have gone ahead and posted the rewrite of the entire article. I repeat my invitation for comment and discussion on anything you feel I have not done correctly or any content you disagree with. I have a definitive source ready to quote from to resolve any queries and am quite happy to make any changes or allow others to make those changes if we can agree. I am hoping with all my heart that we can do this without any further edit warring. I have informed the mediation cabal of the changes. GDD1000 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to post a message and then make a major rewrite without waiting for comment. Especially on a Saturday afternoon, when many editors are otherwise occupied, a much longer wait is in order. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's entirely appropriate. Although that essay says it's better to be specific on the talk page about the changes you want to make. Wiki's wouldn't work by discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss. What are the issues with the rewrite? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A good question. So far we've had an unexplained revert, with no information on items of contention. There is no point in reverting an edit without explaining why, indeed reverting and not opening a discussion is edit warring and not acceptable.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I see a lack of specifics, but I think this is acceptable (if totally inefficient) editing. What I'd rather hear is what about the re-write made the article better, and what about the revert made the article (re)better? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not accepting any reverts. I intend to report RepublicanJacobite at this point. The work page has been up for at least 10 days, I have been inviting comment for over a week and no comment has been forthcoming.GDD1000 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As anyone can see I have been asking all interested parties to examine the work page and agree or discuss the rewrite for the last four days. The work page has been there for about 10 days. No-one has made a single comment. The new material is properly sourced from a variety of sources including the regimental history and Hansard. No discussion took place before RepublicanJacobite decided to revert my edit even though I have made it perfectly clear I am willing to discuss the content I have included. I have included valuable information on the structure of the regiment, actions it was involved in, uniform, duties, awards, pictures - all properly sourced. Can anyone see why my rewrite shouldn't be allowed, especially as care has been taken not to adversley change any of the material which could be considered contentious?GDD1000 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a rather contextual article, so I don't know if I can do that. But you might want to break up the rewrite into smaller edits: you can be specific in the edit summary, and wait to see if that particular edit has consensus. If anything, this can narrow down the content problems the rewrite might have had. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems discussing anything. What I'm having a serious problem with here and now is that nothing was discussed here when the invitation was extended. My rewrite is being rubbished in its entirety and that is totally unjustified. There is no wikipedia policy or rule which allows for this unless I have committed an act of vandalism - which I most certainly haven't.GDD1000 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems at least somewhat contradictory to me that you claim to be willing to discuss anything, yet you make large scale changes to the article without discussion, after having asked for arbitration. You left a message here on the talk page, to which there had yet been no response, and then went ahead and made the changes. Furthermore, you left a POV warning on my talk page and went to ANI asking that I be blocked for edit-warring, despite the fact that I have made exactly 3 edits to this article in the past month, which hardly qualifies as edit-warring. If you are willing to discuss, do so, but do not push a POV under the guise of being even-handed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you are discussing. There was a bold edit, followed by a revert. It would have been better if discussion about the edits made were put on the talk page, instead of a general statement. This discussion can be avoided - where editor is pitted against editor - and we could start right off the bat about the content of the article, discussed below. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb break

  • The Ulster Defence Regiment was unique. Never in modern times had a part time force been raised as an integral part of the British army to carry out military operations in its own country.

Unsourced, therefore subject to instant removal without needing consensus and should not have been added.

Unreliable with a poor reputation for fact checking, as seen by the use of incorrect "facts" from an unreliable source.

  • "A beacon of a new hope in a society torn apart by sectarian strife"

Don't make me laugh. Non-encyclopedic cruft sourced from an unreliable opinion piece.

  • "Intimidation from within the Roman Catholic community or from the IRA, particularly after internment was introduced. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school"

Unreliable source

  • "The loss of these brave Catholic men to some extent took away the raison d'etre of the regiment"

More unencyclopedic cruft.

  • "The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations"

Source provided does not source that exact claim.

  • Batallions section

Cruft.

  • "Documents from 1972 released in 2003 show some of the consultation..."

Why was this removed?

  • The Most Decorated UDR Soldier

Cruft.

  • Attacks On The UDR section

Cruft, and includes information on an incident where most sources don't say the UDR parade was the target.

  • Aftercare section

Cruft, linkfarm.

I'm sure other editors have plenty to add, so why don't you WAIT for what they have to say? Here you bitched and moaned that "I note that BigDunc is wading in again to make edits to the main article, not necessarily agreed" for making two small edits, where is the agreement for your changes?


All of the sources and items you have rubbished above are available from a variety of sources. I have the regimental history sitting beside me and can confirm most of the quotes from Hansard. Why isn't someone DISCUSSING this instead of making accusations of poor sourcing etcetcetc. This record is running a bit thinGDD1000 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As for not discussing this with anyone - has no-one noticed that I have been asking for discussion since the 13th May? See "UDR Work Page" above. GDD1000 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are "available from a variety of sources", you will be able to cite better ones straight away then yes? So we will not get bogged down in "that is reliable"/"no it is not". Post the sources here, and we'll discuss more. I discussed my initial objections, and can expand on them easily. You asked for discussion earlier today, then made your changes without waiting just hours later. Then you edit warred to add them back, why cannot you wait for comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.64.163 (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean I only asked for comments today? I've been asking for comments since the 13th [inst]. The comments being made about genuine, verified claims show that no-one is interested in discussing. Take for example "The Most Decorated UDR Soldier". That comes straight from the regimental history and the ISBN source was included. What's the justifiction for removing that?GDD1000 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

He said it was cruft, I think. Can you provide reliable sources for the contested bits? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cruft and poorly written. A hedge trimmer could make a more encyclopedic use of the information, but it was too long and crufty. Are you denying you asked for comments today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinprick treaties (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the regimental history beside me. I can substantiate anything I have written from it and Hansard. As for this assertion that my work is "Cruft" what about this Pinprick saying something useful to a relatively new poster?GDD1000 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then substantiate :-)
As for civility, you all should know better. No point mediating a content dispute if everyone's fussing about the editor and not the edit. Everyone should avoid that, even if you have to fake it. Makes things smoother on a project of this size. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

what do you want substantiated. Let's take it point by point and I will provide the sources I've used from my work page or if I've inadvertantly got them wrong or left them out - correct them. That's what I've wanted all along, nothing more, nothing less. I didn't expect anyone to come on here like PinPrick and start totally rubbishing what I've done. Perhaps he and others have missed the point - that I'm trying to do something useful here, not be party political or create dissent.GDD1000 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just mediating :-) (which reminds me, I need to open the case)
The list up above mentioned some unreliable sourcing. Maybe you could start there? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the first item about the regiment being unique is a quote from the regimental history and is perfectly true. A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, Major John Furniss Potter, Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2001, ISBN 0850528194.

The quote about intimidation of Catholics can be found in great detail on Hansard, in the regimental history (in great depth) and of course the quote that was rubbished was from the Irish News, a newspaper with a Nationalist slant. Three sources were provided for that and none of thm apparantly are good enough?

The loss of these brave Catholic men to some extent took away the raison d'etre of the regiment. My words but intended to convey that the regiment was supposed to be 40% catholic and 60% protestant. That's supported elsewhere in the article with acceptable quotes. If the percentages dropped to 99:1 as stated then of course the regiment, through no fault of its own, didn't live up to the expectations of the catholic members of the population.

The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations a link is provided to Hansard at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1990-07-11/Writtens-4.html which says exactly that.

The Most Decorated UDR Soldier Taken directly from the regimental history. There's no denying the man got the awards so how is it not appropriate to include the item?

Perhaps we can deal with those first? I'm starting to think though the the reference links are not correct. I'm no expert but on clicking the links I'm getting to the wrong sources.GDD1000 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the last point, which may illustrate best practice on the rest, it may be better to state that the regimental history claims that he is the most decorated, rather than referencing it as fact from one source.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but he is/was an Ulster Defence Regiment Soldier and if the official history of the Ulster Defence Regiment says he was the "most decorated" UDR soldier I think all parties have to accept that as fact. It's just the same as citing someone as a Victoria Cross winner. You only need one good source. Yes I could put in more than one source but then I run the risk of someone else stepping in an accusing the article of being a link farm - which it is already.

Can other editors not get it through their heads that this is a regimental history? It's one of three I'm rewriting at the moment. This isn't me trying to write some political statement, so if I put in information sourced from the official regimental history that "private Smith fired his weapon accidentally at a crowd" I'm not putting that information in because I think it might annoy people - it's put there because it happened and the incident is recorded.

As far as the entire rewrite is concerned; it's long overdue and it removes repetition which was making the article confusing. It includes new information which makes the article more encyclopedic. It doesn't contain any political bias, in fact it has facts which are detrimental. May I suggest another method of going forward? Replace each section and discuss the replacement here. Provide sourcing on each item with concensus and agree the wording, in case my wording is maybe too "flowery" for people. The remainder of the article is on the work page so that the formatting can be seen.

Even with all these changes the article is far from finished. With the information I have to hand now a much more comprehensive and encyclopedic work can be created and that is exactly what I intend to do. It's what Wikipedia is about. People just need to set their prejudices about Ireland to one side and allow the article to be written.GDD1000 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not source "The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations", as it is not a time sensitive statement. BigDuncTalk 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected 2

More edit-warring. I have protected this for the time being; but I would warn some editors that edit-warring, even if you do not break 3RR, may result in an application of the ArbCom injunction. Both "sides" appear to be close to this here. Black Kite 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the entry on AN/I? There are some major civility problems.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have; it isn't helping, and the users involved should know better. Black Kite 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think I was causing any civility issues? Despite my frustration, reading back over my posts I don't see anything which could justify the horrible things being said to me. I feel quite aggrieved actually. GDD1000 (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, I didn't mean you.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish to also add, with the greatest of respect, that it was me who withdrew and brought the edit warring to the attention of others. Whilst I was doing that another editor again reverted an item on the article. GDD1000 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GDD, an edit doesn't have consensus by virtue of it being reverted. Have you tried a consensus statement for your edit? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise reversion doesn't provide concensus however the editors are making the deletions without agreement. You can see by the way the arguments have gone over the past few weeks what their objections are. I'm not finding them convincing because on the one hand, they seem to want links to clarify virtually every word, then they complain that the article looks like a "link farm". I've examined other articles where there are no such issues and I'm left wondering what on earth all the fighting about is on here. Several third party editors have looked at this and found ways round bits of it but in some cases when they leave, the information is reverted again. I just can't see the need for this to be so hard fought. It's a regimental history, not a political statement. Yes I realise the regiment was heavily involved in the Northern Ireland Troubles but I just want a definitive history. GDD1000 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above shows exactly what the problem is with the majority of your editing. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore this should be an encyclopedia article about the UDR, whereas you are attempting to write a regimental history. BigDuncTalk 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps you could explain the difference? What exactly should this be if not an encyclopedic regimental history?
Don't you know the difference between an encyclopedia article and a regimental history? BigDuncTalk 19:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This should be a history of the Regiment, ergo a regimental history.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, myself. It might help to get a clarification, so we're all on the same page. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this article: History_of_the_Irish_Guards. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There needs to be as much information as possible about how the regiment was formed, how it developed, the actions its was involved in, the awards it received. Unlike the Irish Guards however I accept that the UDR was a much more complicated animal so I fully agree that we should have information on how people were intimdated to prevent them joining or make them leave. We should inform readers of that small percentage who became criminals while wearing the uniform and how they disgraced themselves. we should also tell people about how the regiment becamse a political football because of the unusual circumstances of its very existence. It should be a good, well written, comprehensive article as a regimental history in keeping with the encyclopedic values of Wikpedia.GDD1000 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors close to the subject they are writing about (such as the former UDR member with a clear conflict of interest) and who is a WP:SPA are generally unable to determine what information belongs in an encyclopedia article, and what belongs in a post they might be writing to put on their blog. We should include only salient information, not huge swathes of off-topic cruft of little interest to the reader. BigDuncTalk 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Concensus Statement

1. A personal reason why you are in support of the action you are taking
I believe that the article has become confusing with multiple repetitions and a confusing layout. The article is only the bare bones of what constitutes a regimental history in an encyclopedic fashion. It requires more information about the day to day work of the regiment, its soldiers, its good points, its bad points, its sucesses, its failures. Without a complete rewrite it just looks as if it existed and had allegations of collusion against it.

2. What would theoretically needs to be said or done to make you reverse that position
I would need to be told by Wikipedia admin that my perception of what constitutes a regimental history is incorrect.

I can find you ten admins in an hour, probably ;-)
There aren't many admins, though, and believe me when I say that most aren't knowledgable about regimental histories :-) You'll find many more plain editors who can clarify (by way of argument, not ad hominem attacks) what constitutes a regimental history. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks? Does that include the type of attacks I have been getting verbally all day like "(such as the former UDR member with a clear conflict of interest)" or having my sand box trashed?GDD1000 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an argument to the person rather than that person's argument (ex: John argues X, Joe argues X is wrong because John came up with it). But there hasn't been much (any?) substantial discourse on the edit made (diff), so there really isn't much else to go by at the moment. It's up to you to argue against COI, which could be seen as a legitimate problem if you can't be objective. But the arguments against the edit made were not about COI, but cruft (it would probably be WP:NPOV if COI were an issue).
With that said, the largest chunks of text you added were reverted as cruft; perhaps you folks could come to a clearer understand about what constitutes cruft in this article? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article about the Irish Guards regimental history? Can you see that's what I'm trying to do here? That's actually ALL I'm trying to do here - nothing else. Have you looked at the other regimental histories and wartime articles I have contributed to? Do you see anyone objecting to them or to the writing style? Can you personally see anything wrong with the article at my work page? Can you see any reason why all that information COULDN'T be included here to make the article richer? I'm not being funny about this, I'm genuinely interested in what your opinion is because the opinions I've been getting so far are not, in my mind, logical or designed to help improve the article. I am being obstructed - in my opinion. So WHAT if I was a soldier in the UDR? I was also a soldier in another regiment, nobody is accusing me of a COI there!GDD1000 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend not to worry about COI issues, unless it's really obvious; it probably gets thrown around much more than it needs to (or not as much as it should be, especially in any sensitive article, but I don't like that theory).
I only started participating after the revert war, and I'm mostly going on about the edits and subsequent reverts that were made before this current protection, but maybe I came in too late?... I would prefer if the protection were lifted, since then we could more easily discuss the contents of the edits and not the editors who made them. But I need a show of support: the edit warring has to stop (dancing around 3RR), and no more talking past each other in edit summaries (of all places).
I don't doubt anyone's ability as a contributor, both you and the obstructionists who probably see you as an obstructionist ;-) I don't think many people consciously obstruct on Wikipedia :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I think we're getting over it now. I think meaningful discussion is finally taking place. I accept that a lot of this is down to my inexperience with policy. I'm trying to be more understanding of the other editors positions at the moment and I can now see I am getting the help I craved all along (although it's also fair to say I didn't realise that for some time).GDD1000 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

3. A reason why you think others (will) support you (ie, why is this likely to gain consensus)
I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create informative, verifiable articles for mass readership and that this article constitutes an extremely important window into the existence of a most unusual militia-style unit within the British Army whose contribution to society in Northern Ireland is a matter of historical fact.

4. What likely would need to be said or done to reverse the position of the community.
Political sentiment should be dispensed with to take the creation of the article to a level where it can be discussed in the same context as an article on a tin of beans.

GDD1000 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Now My Work Page Is Under Attack

Would ArbCom please note that my workpage at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GDD1000/UDR is now coming under attack. Despite a template on the page advising others that it is a work page BigDunc has decided to remove images from it before I have had a chance to sort out what I need to do about copyright. Is this conducive to the "friendly" and "civil" manner admins are asking for on this article.GDD1000 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know who does own the copywrite for that "logo". Surely only the cap badge, if anything, is copywtite?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I really have got an issue here. I asked for some help on the images several days ago and one or two editors had fixed a couple of things for me. I've been able to upload other images without too much propblem but it's obvious I'm now a target for as much disruption as can be caused to me under the guise of policy.GDD1000 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the real reason the page was edited see here seems that every edit made that GDD1000 doesn't agree with is an attack on him. BigDuncTalk 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would stop the attacks and work with me to improve this article then we could move on? I am not involved in any of your other wee spats and after this I'll be giving you one helluva wide berth - no disrespect.GDD1000 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully. No disrespect BigDuncTalk 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, let's get this straight. My issue with this article is not political. I'm a former soldier with a big interest in military history. I didn't know about all this controversy which had been raging before about articles which were linked to the Troubles. I'm not here to push propaganda about the UDR, nor (as you can see) was I going to stand idly by while their image was trashed. I want the article to reflect the real story about the regiment, warts and all. That does mean however that you and one or two others are going to have to accept that, at times, I will be putting in dialogue which shows they really didn't do a bad job in really difficult circumstances. It's unavoidable when it comes to politics. everything in Northern Ireland is. All I can do - all ANY of us can do, is write the article which reflects that fact that one set of politicians loved the UDR and the other set hated them. Try and write it as if we'd never been there. Go take a look at the other articles I'm rewriting and you'll get my drift. It doesn't have to be THIS testing on all of us. GDD1000 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO your the one who is making it testing and your inability to understand policy, which you keep claiming is down to being a newbie, your continued edit warring even when asked to stop, yesterday was a prime example. Your paronia that every time an edit is done that you don't agree with is a personal attack on you or your beloved regiment. Read WP:AGF. And for someone who claims to be ignorant of the wiki way you sure know how to file reports and forum shop you have been on the 3RR page and ANI and have also been on to seek mediation. So lose the i'm new here and dont know what i'm doing and we might get some where. BigDuncTalk 08:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before. I AM new here. The fact that I'm able to file reports is down to you guys. At a time when I should have been gently learning how to navigate the site I've instead had to learn how to complain about other editors and that makes me sad. As for my "beloved regiment". I'm really disappointed that you're taking a swipe in that direction again. I've edited at least five regimental histories on Wikipedia and am still in the process of rewriting some of them. That's the life-blood of Wikipedia, people with interests who are prepared to add information and give their time. Anyway, you keep getting it wrong; the UDR is not my "beloved regiment". I'm from another regiment, I just happened to serve three years with the UDR is all and that gives me an insight which you should be embracing, not criticising. As for disagreeing with edits. We all know the work is in progress and you should be a helluva lot more understanding with regards to the edits until I get my head around what constitutes policy and what doesn't.

I've suggested above that I should start applying copy from the rewrite, section by section. I propose I put the first section in as soon as ArbCom lift the protection, then we discuss. If you look at the first section on my work page you'll see I have reduced the section to take out some repetitive stuff. I've added a couple of lines, one of which you didn't like, from the regimental history which points out that the regiment was "unique" in modern times. That uniqueness refers to the fact that it was a militia style regiment, raised locally for local service. That is totally unique in the British Army in the 20th century as the milita was disbanded in 1908. The only force which was similar was the British Home Guard but its membership was the over 55's. The UDR's membership was for 18-55 year olds. I have also amended the military info panel to change the status of the regiment from "Line Infantry" to "Militia". That's for the same reason. The regiment was never line infantry. To be line infantry you need to "serve with the colours" which means overseas service. The UDR had a home service contract only. This is the sort of thing I'm trying to do. Put in accurate, useful and verifiable information. With the regimental history now at hand I am able to check most facts, as long as you accept the regimental history as a source.GDD1000 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have numerous issues with what you have done with the article in your userspace and I will address these when I get a little more time. As I am currently sitting exams at the moment. Do you call adding a poem to the article accurate, useful. And once again stop playing the I am new card because when it is pointed out to you that you are violating policy you ignore, and edit war as you are not assuming good faith with the edits I do. BigDuncTalk 10:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have issues then lets discuss them but I suggest we do it as a section at a time. Then we don't get bogged down over multiple issues and we can take out time over it while you do your exams and I do some real work in my office. You're going to have to accept the fact that I am new however, and while I'm certainly not as green as I was a few weeks ago I cannot claim to be the font of all knowledge as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. My utter confusion over copyright policy should be a strong indication of that. I think the major issue here is verifiable sources and, as I said, we can discuss those. As long as the regimental history is accepted as a source however all I need to do is confirm some salient points with Hansard (which is rich in the information needed) and any other acceptable sources. I'm not going to delibertately violate policy but some of it is open to interpretation and I believe that's where we need concensus. Bear in mind; I am trying to write a potted, encyclopedic history. Not make saints out of the UDR. If you agree to help and Domer48 comes in on it too, then I reckon we can produce an article whcih is worth the effort. It needs rewritten though - anybody can see that IMO.GDD1000 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot the poem. It seemed like a good idea at the time, that's all. I really didn't think anyone would have an objection. As it's copyright however it can't be included, unless I get permission from Major Potter. Will I bother doing so? I don't think so, because I now think it was a bad idea to include it. That's what the work page is for though. To put my ideas down and get opinions from you more experienced guys before it gets to the argumentative stage. You may think I jumped the gun on Saturday with such a bold edit but I, like everyone, have more time at the weekends and again, it seemed like a good idea at the time, especially after informing you and Domer48 that I was about to do it. Call me impatient if you will but I felt that two hours was a reasonable time to wait.GDD1000 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First Section

Ok. Here's the first section in its entirety. Can we have comments and suggested changes please. For my part; I'd like to take away the red and gold logo in the mil info panel. It should be the cap badge in there to keep the article in line with other military info pieces.GDD1000 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now made one change to the proposed lead section. As noted by me and pointed out by BigDunc some information which I had moved to a subsequent section does seem better as part of the lead as an item of the concise history.GDD1000 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Ulster Defence Regiment CGC
[[Image:UDR.PNG|150px]]
Symbol of the Ulster Defence Regiment
Active 1970 - 1992
Country United Kingdom
Branch British Army
Type Militia
Role Internal Security
Size 11 battalions (at peak)
March Garryowen
Commanders
Colonel of
the Regiment
Colonel Mark Campbell[1].

The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) was an infantry regiment of the British Army formed in 1970 to replace the B Specials in assisting with security duties within Northern Ireland.[2] It was the largest infantry regiment in the British Army, formed with an initial seven battalions and an extra four added later.[3] The concept of the regiment was based on the militia idea of raising a force locally to patrol and assist with law enforcment during a time of emergency. It was partly due to recruiting from the local community at a time of intercommunal strife, that it faced accusations of collusion through most of its term.[4] Even though intended to be non-partisan, and beginning with up to 18% Catholic recruits, the regiment's image problems with nationalists, including sectarianism amongst some Protestant soldiers, as well as IRA attacks on Catholic UDR soldiers.[5] resulted in the Catholic membership declining, with only 3% being Catholic when it amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers, forming the Royal Irish Regiment. The Ulster Defence Regiment was unique. Never in modern times had a part time force been raised as an integral part of the British army to carry out military operations in its own country. During it's existence an estimated 40,000 people served in its ranks. In 2007 the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was awarded to the regiment for its service during Operation BANNER,[6] the postnominal letters CGC are now allowed to be used as part of its name (The Ulster Defence Regiment CGC).


I would also like to propose the inclusion of a graphic of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross below the info panel.GDD1000 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it later. Policies and Guidelines I would suggest, WP:LEAD, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV, in addition to the ones we have already discussed such as WP:V and WP:RS. These are the first ones I had to deal with when I started editing, so if you need help with them let me know. One other is very useful and that is WP:TPG, it cuts out a lot of the nonsence. --Domer48 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold back until you get a chance to look at it properly. I'm at work so I haven't time to read those policy items but I will later so I can understand what you mean. I just want the opening item to be concise and contain a small number of facts. The actual meat of the article should be in the sections intended to go below which we can discuss after we've sorted the opening section. I only want to include the CGC as a piece of colour.GDD1000 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've just read WP:LEAD and I get your point. I see at least one glaring ommission - no information about the amalgamation.GDD1000 (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you have read the policies and guidlines, so you will understand what I mean. For example, why this would have to be sourced? "The concept of the regiment was based on the antiquated militia idea of raising a force locally to patrol and assist with law enforcment during a time of emergency." How for example would this fit in with the policy of "Ulsterisation". Now this is well sourced, but a breif outline is contained here, which is less abrasive then the house of commons one. After all the introduction of the URD being simply used to reduce the number of British Soldiers in body bags and give the impression that it was just the Irish having a pop at each other is a far cry from what you are suggesting. I don’t mean to be harsh sounding, but you get what I mean. --Domer48 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was concentrating on the Hunt Report issues in the opening section. That's basically to replace the locally raised special constabulary with a locally raised military unit to remove the paramilitary perception of the police. (they disarmed the police at that time as well in line with the recommendations). Ulsterisation didn't happen until 76(ish) and in the "history" section (which is next for discussion) I elaborate on the formation of the full time platoons and companies which was part of the Ulsterisation process but I don't actually mention Ulsterisation although it's a good subject for inclusion. Jack Hermon said at that time that "Ulstermen had to learn to live together and be policed by Ulstermen. If they had to kill, let them kill each other, not English soldiers."

I have read the policies you provided and I believe I understand their meaning. How do you suggest I word the article then to portray this unusual militia without using the word "unique", although I could possibly qualify it by quoting page 1 of chapter 1 of the regimental history (which I'll just call RH from now on)? Those two sentences: The Ulster Defence Regiment was unique. Never in modern times had a part time force been raised as an integral part of the British army to carry out military operations in its own country. are a direct quote from that page. Is there any problem with using the adjective "antiquated"? IMO, as the militia was disbanded in 1908 it's a reasonable term to use. I don't mind the comments being harsh with regards to the regiment or the situation at that time. These were and are harsh realities which have to be dealt with, but in line with Wikipedia policy.GDD1000 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not true to say that the UDR was unique in those terms. Nearly all line regiments of the British Army had home service battalions until before WWII.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's strictly true. They had "service" battalions as well as territorial battalions. I don't believe I've ever come across the term "Home Service" with regards to regular or TA units. In your opinion were these battalions you mention for use at home or were they part of the reserve army? The issue here is a "locally raised militia" of service age which only took part in the policing of the country it was raised in. Can you point the rest of us towards any reading material which could influence this?GDD1000 (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, no. Its a distant memory from when I worked in a military museum about 5 years ago.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In my experience for me to make a sweeping statement that you're wrong could lead me to have the proverbial egg on my face later. I'm pretty sure you're confusing "service battalions" with "Home Service Battalions" though. The term "service battalion" was used to indicate battalions which were raised prior to wartime as opposed to volunteer or conscription battalions raised especially for the conflict. It really applies more to WW1.GDD1000 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Dunc's comments

Right here we go, take a deep breath, comparing the disputed version to the current version

The lead

Exactly why was this sentence removed?

  • Even though intended to be non-partisan, and beginning with up to 18% Catholic recruits, the regiment's image problems with nationalists, including sectarianism amongst some Protestant soldiers, as well as IRA attacks on Catholic UDR soldiers resulted in the Catholic membership declining, with only 3% being Catholic when it amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers, forming the Royal Irish Regiment.

Why was this unsourced information added?

  • The concept of the regiment was based on the antiquated militia idea of raising a force locally to patrol and assist with law enforcment during a time of emergency. Unlike the militia of pre 1908 the Ulster Defence Regiment received pay.

Why was this unsourced information added? And why is it so important it needs a separate paragraph in the lead?

  • The Ulster Defence Regiment was unique. Never in modern times had a part time force been raised as an integral part of the British army to carry out military operations in its own country.

History section

Why was this flowery journalistic nonsense added?

  • The first Catholic recruits were to be "A beacon of a new hope in a society torn apart by sectarian strife"

Why was this sentence added, using a source that has been amply discredited?

  • Intimidation from within the Roman Catholic community or from the IRA, particularly after internment was introduced. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school

Why was this flowery wording used? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

  • The loss of these brave Catholic men to some extent took away the raison d'etre of the regiment

This sentence is not adequately sourced, as mentioned above. It was certainly the case in 1990, but was that always the case? Source doesn't say so.

  • The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations

Structure section

The list of commanders adds nothing, pure cruft. In addition the whole addition to the section is unsourced - compare before and after

Uniform section

Unsourced additions.

Information cards section

I don't see what relevance the addition has to the UDR article. As the information added isn't UDR specific, why is it mentioned? Why do we need to mention any changes to general Army orders in this article? Did the UDR ever use a 84mm anti tank grenade launcher?

Awards, Honours & Decorations section

The addition of Eric Glass is poorly written cruft with POV language in addition, if he's notable write an article on him and include him in the notable members section. I also note this section was moved up the article, for reasons that have not been explained.

Notable Members section

I see this section was also moved up the article, for reasons that have not been explained.

Attacks On The UDR section

Goes into too much unnecessary and confusing detail, would be much better off summarised and combined with the "Members killed" section. Also still includes an incident based on the whim of some journalist who is contradicted by virtually every other source.

Aftercare section

Despite consensus that this section is mostly a redundant linkfarm, it was expanded to become even more of a linkfarm. Merge any relevant information elesewhere and lose the vast majority of external links. This section was also moved up the article, for reasons that have not been explained.

Attitudes and image section

Compare before and after. Vast amount of unsourced information added, mostly OR and poorly written. Some specific examples......political commentary added, when the editor concerned has been repeatedly warned about this.

  • Much of the criticism levelled against the regiment was, and still is, (understandably) politically motivated.

Unsourced commentary.

  • Inadequate supplies of vehicles, uniforms and ammunition and an almost total lack of training made them appear amateurish and at times, almost risable.

I could list many more, but given the entire addition to the section was unsourced there's no need to. I note this section was also moved down the article, for reasons that have not been explained. Perhaps because the former UDR member wants to keep the negative information out of the way where nobody will see it?

Allegations of collusion section

Addition of bullet points for no discernible reason (which happened in other sections too), they should not be added unless there is a legitimate reason to do so. I also note this section was also moved down the article, right to the bottom in fact. And it is the same section that the former UDR member has either attempted to add his own bias to or remove completely - see this this, this, this, this and this. Funny that, how the former UDR member repeatedly tried to add bias or remove the section about his own regiment colluding with unionist paramilitaries, then he tries to move it right down to the bottom of the article.

All in alll

I notice a book has been cited without page numbers. I request page numbers be provided, due to the editor's previous additions distorting what sources say, and I wish to check the book for myself. My patience is wearing quite thin with this editor. Despite admins refusing to take action against this editor's many policy violations before, he's still trying to add unsourced information to articles in violation of Wikipedia policy and a specific ArbCom case that applies to this article. He exhibits major ownership problems on anything he writes, claims people enforcing policy are vandals or are attacking "his" work, even including image policy. His claims of vandalism even stretch to the point of thinking anyone who reverts any addition he makes to an article can be given a level 3 vandalism warning, this is just ridiculous. He's saying he can add anything he wants, and anyone who removes it is a vandal. Either his future edits are in line with policy, or they may be reverted. BigDuncTalk 09:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a step back Dunc, please. We're only discussing the first section at the moment. The time for disagreement is past. I'll deal with your comments ffrom the lead section and between you and Domer you can advise me.

*Even though intended to be non-partisan, and beginning with up to 18% Catholic recruits, the regiment's image problems with nationalists, including sectarianism amongst some Protestant soldiers, as well as IRA attacks on Catholic UDR soldiers resulted in the Catholic membership declining, with only 3% being Catholic when it amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers, forming the Royal Irish Regiment.
I felt that lot was better put in the history section but I certainly agree I should have left the amalmagmation information in the lead section. After examining the policy on it I believe it should be put back in and I will do so on the reproduction above at "First Section".

*The concept of the regiment was based on the antiquated militia idea of raising a force locally to patrol and assist with law enforcment during a time of emergency. Unlike the militia of pre 1908 the Ulster Defence Regiment received pay.
I am reproducing comments I made above That uniqueness refers to the fact that it was a militia style regiment, raised locally for local service. That is totally unique in the British Army in the 20th century as the milita was disbanded in 1908. The only force which was similar was the British Home Guard but its membership was the over 55's. The UDR's membership was for 18-55 year olds. The "unique" reference is a quote from chapter 1, page 1, of the RH.

I wasn't aware I had to quote pages from the RH but now that you mention it, it does make perfect sense. Also, can I ask you to refrain from referring to me as "The former UDR member". It appears to be used here as an insult and an attempt at creating a COI on my part. FYI, I belong to another regiment, not mentioned here. I am appealing to you for civility and meaningful discussion.GDD1000 (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A detailed summary of the article, it will all need to be addressed. The concept of the regiment was based on Ulsterisation, a policy that is not totally unique in the British Army in the 20th century. Raising local forces has always been a feature, and the rational is contained in the policy of Ulsterisation. That is based on sources which meet our policy of WP:V. Now based on Dunc's summary, there is a lot of problems with this, and I just highlighting one here. The summary indicates that you should also read up on WP:NPOV. --Domer48 (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The above comment is not based in fact. If Ulsterisation existed (and there are some WP:V issues there), then it started in the mid to late 70's. The UDR was raised well before 1972 directly out of a desire to bring the USC into line with normal policing standards. Ulsterisation had nothing whatsoever to do with the raising of the UDR.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be my assertion too. Ulsterisation didn't start until 1976. At no other time since 1908 did the British Army raise an infantry regiment which only served at home. It's not a POV issue IMO. It's fact.GDD1000 (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine! Provide a source that supports that opinion, and not just assertions? "If Ulsterisation existed..." It did! That is a fact and there is no WP:V issues there. Now no comment or opinion, lets source all our contrabutions shall we? The UDR were raised directly out of a desire to reduce the number of British soliders going home in body bags. It was then portrayed as if the British government was trying to keep to warring sides apart. To reference that, apart from the sources I have already provided, read Liz Curtis, The Propaganda War for the Hearts and Minds. --Domer48 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got a Hansard link for it at home I'm sure and I can also quote from the RH. I'll do that later. I'm sure the links actually do make specific reference to reducing the number of English soldiers killed and I for one don't mind that being included - warts and all I said.GDD1000 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"The UDR were raised directly out of a desire to reduce the number of British soliders going home in body bags." Utter nonsense. The Hunt report was 1969 before even Bloody Sunday.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1969 there were 18 deaths one of whom was a soldier.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to point out he's still not shown what relevance the information has in the lead, and why a seperate paragraph to highlight it is needed especially. BigDuncTalk 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe I did. The fact that it was such an unusual occurence to raise a militia almost 100 years after the disbanding of the militia.GDD1000 ([[User talk:GDD1000|talk]) 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask so what secondary sources apart from the regimental history have made note of that. BigDuncTalk 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a link to the militia and the British Home Guard. They explain the situation further. I didn't want to make too much out of it.GDD1000 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1969 the IRA had little or no weapons, in 1969 we had people demanding CIVIL RIGHTS not guns. Can be referenced to any number of books. --Domer48 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? We're discussion your assertion that "The UDR were raised directly out of a desire to reduce the number of British soliders going home in body bags." The decision to raise the UDR was taken in 1969, when you state "the IRA had little or no weapons". How do you square your first assertion with the second?Traditional unionist (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple really, with the RUC Loyalists and the British Army killing people [left right and centre, as your link illustrates, the IRA got better guns. Killing so many innocent people was making the occupation look bad, so they decided to put the eye on the locals. Give the loyalists some guns and a uniform (former B-Specials) and lets call them the UDR. Now that it in a rough way? --Domer48 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're changing your argument. So you accept that you were talking nonsense when you said "The UDR were raised directly out of a desire to reduce the number of British soliders going home in body bags."?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Domer's entitled to his opinion however I'm clear that what he's asserting is the 1976 Ulsterisation policy.GDD1000 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, they just can't go spouting it as fact when it demonstrably isn't.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we just need a time out break.GDD1000 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy on there chaps, it's all starting to get very heated again. I don't feel there's a need for it. Discussion is the key and here's my opinion: 1. The UDR was raised as a result of the Hunt Report. 2. Ulsterisation didn't start until 1976 and it was then that the UDR's full time "operational" cadre was raised. Those two facts are absolute and there can be no doubt about their verifiability. Domer, do you need proof of this? Some links on Ulsterisation maybe? BigDunc, I believe it is relevant because the raising of this regiment is outside the norm and I think anyone reading the article should know that from the lead section. It's not a regular infantry unit we're talking about here - it was an aberration, caused by the unusual circumstances of the time and detailed in the Hunt Report. As for the IRA, there's no getting away from the fact that they are relevant. It might be an idea to include a line or two to point that out? Domer, ref your last comment. You're letting your own COI get in the way here. I'm not condemning you for having a POV on it but can we just stick to the facts please?GDD1000 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you to refrain from referring to me as "The former UDR member". It appears to be used here as an insult and an attempt at creating a COI on my part. Domer, ref your last comment. You're letting your own COI get in the way here. You cant have it both ways you are the only editor here that has a COI. BigDuncTalk 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing that. You may be a member of SF for all anyone else knows.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly we have NO way of knowing so what we do is assume good faith with a name like you have you could be the Grand Wizard Grand Master of some loyal lodge but you said you weren't an Orangeman so we AGF. BigDuncTalk 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been warned about civility already this week. Refrain from your offensive remarks or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Gents, please! This is getting us nowhere. Can we return to the discussion about the article please?GDD1000 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, please. If any of us really desired it we could go to a pub, get drunk, start a fight and exchange all the insults we wanted. I've asked you to be reasonable and I'm trying to be reasonable with you. Can we have a truce?GDD1000 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You called for a truce, then made an unsubstantiated comment that another editor has a COI. Please stop insulting people who disagree with your editing. BigDuncTalk 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had made an unsubstantiated comment. I have no wish to insult anyone. Can we leave it, and the insults, there - please?GDD1000 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section - continued

The above dialogue is getting pretty confusing, so I've started a new section. Dunc and Domer, could you examine the revised first section please. I think the only thing remaining is to sort out whether or not the orphan sentence about the uniqeness of the regiment stays or not. I have the quote from page 1, chapter 1 of the RH but I can see there was some disagreement over when Ulsterisation started. I've put my opinion down (that it started in 1976) and we already have concensus that the regiment was formed as a result of recomendations by the Hunt Report. What comments do you want to add?GDD1000 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate why that part is important enough to be added to the lead, or the other sentence you want to add regarding millita and 1908. BigDuncTalk 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I had. The use of militia was ceased in 1908. To start using the concept again 70 years later was most unusual. No other militia style regiments were raised in the 20th century which makes this regiment unique in that respect. All other British Army regiments were either regular or TA - both "colour service". The UDR did not serve with the "colours". The only possible exception being the Home Guard but it was for men who were too old to serve with the colours. The size of the regiment was remarkable too but we can leave that to another section. Can you see what I'm driving at?GDD1000 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add, no other militia regiments have been raised since either, although the idea was still around. You might find this link useful in helping to understand the militia concept Militia#United_KingdomGDD1000 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have read WP:LEAD, you should realise the futility of discussing this section first. Domer48 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread it, thanks for the link. It does seem to me that the lead section should contain basic but notable information as an overview of the article. I think this information complies with that, in fact I think that couple of lines deals with the subject effectively enough to not have to bother with it again. To include it further down would be repetitive and unecessary, same goes for the amalgamation details. History, structure, controversy etc etc do need exploded upon for the more interested reader but once you've pointed out that it was the only militias regiment raised in the 20th century that should be enough. It's not the milita which is the subject of the article and a link is provided to direct the interested reader to the Wiki/militia article. Why do you think we shouldn't have that information in the lead?GDD1000 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's use the Irish Guards as an example again. Take a look at their lead section. It does contain some fairly banal information but the overall impression of the lead is good, as is the rest of the item although they have so much history they have to use a separate page.GDD1000 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no point discussing the lead first, it is a waste of everyone's time. As the lead summarises the main body of the article, we need to deal with the main body of the article. Domer48 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your reasons for saying that so we'll leave the lead as it is for the moment. I'll post the next section and we can get some discussion on that.GDD1000 (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

History & Duties

Ok lads, go for it.GDD1000 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

History

The regiment was formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),[7] which suggested replacing the part time B Specials, "seen by many as a Protestant army",[8] with a force that would be "impartial in every sense and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force."[7] The first regimental commander was Brigadier Logan Scott-Bowden. [9] The first two soldiers reported as signing up were a 19 year old Catholic and a 47 year old Protestant.[10] Seven battalions were initially raised, making it the largest infantry regiment in the British Army. Two years later, four more battalions were added, taking the total to eleven. Until 1976 the full time cadre consisted only of a conrate [11][12]whose duties consisted of guarding UDR bases and carrying out administrative tasks. It was then decided to expand the role of the regiment by including a full time operational capability on a 24 hour basis. The first of these was raised at 2 UDR under the command of a sergeant. By the end of the 1970's the full time cadre had been raised to 16 platoons. As these "Operations Platoons" were expanded to company strength, eventually the conrate role was phased out with full time UDR soldiers undertaking their own guard duties and administration. The regiment was reduced to nine battalions in 1984, then to seven in 1991, at which point Tom King, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced that as part of the restructuring of the armed forces the regiment would merge with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment. On 1 July 1992 the merger was officially complete. On 1 August 2007 the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, the second highest British military honour, was awarded to the regiment for its service during Operation Banner.[13]

  • Intimidation. The UDR was presented to the entire community of Northern Ireland as a replacement for the paramilitary police reserve, the Ulster Special Constabularly, known as the B Specials. An exclusively Protestant force, these specials were seen as a tool of the state and a means to keep the Roman Catholic members of the population in their place. With the population of the Province standing at approximately 60% Protestant and 40% Roman Catholic in 1969 it was hoped that the recruitment figures for the regiment would reflect those numbers. The first Catholic recruits were to be "A beacon of a new hope in a society torn apart by sectarian strife". Beginning with up to 18% Catholic recruits, this rapidly declined, with only 3% being Catholic when it amalgamated in 1992 with the Royal Irish Rangers.[14] The main contributing factors were:
  • Protestant members of the UDR intimidated Roman Catholic members into leaving.
  • Intimidation from within the Roman Catholic community or from the IRA, particularly after internment was introduced. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school.[15] [16].[17]

The loss of these Catholic men to some extent took away the raison d'etre of the regiment, which was to give Catholic members of the community the opportunity to be involved in the policing of their own community as specified in the Hunt Report. It also meant that the UDR could never be upheld as the impartial force Lord Hunt had intended it to be.


Throughout the UDR's history, there were allegations that members covertly aided the loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. Evidence believed to have been examined by British military intelligence in 1973 concluded that while there was "in no case [...] proof positive of collusion" there was however "considerable suspicion".[4] These allegations are seen as part of "one of the most controversial episodes of Northern Ireland's conflict."[18]

To date it is the only unit in the history of the British Army to have been on operational deployment for its entire history, from the moment it was created until it was amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers in 1992. [25]

Duties

The primary function of the regiment was to assist the police by guarding key installations and providing patrols and vehicle checkpoints on public roads to hamper the activities of terrorist groups. The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations, nor was it permitted to patrol West Belfast or the City of Derry/Londonderry.[19]

As the force was initially predominantly part-time the presence of its members was mostly felt during evenings and weekends. The force was expected to answer to general call out and was indeed mobilised on a permanent basis on several occasions such as Operation Motorman[20] to provide manpower assistance to the police or army.

As the regiment evolved into a predominantly full-time unit it assumed more duties previously assigned to the police or army in support of Operation Banner. By 1980 the full-time element had become the majority and the regiment's role had expanded to include tactical responsibility for 85% of Northern Ireland supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary[21].



The current edits you are proposing are nearly identical to what BigDunc already commented on above, yet you have failed to amend them inline with what he said, so why are you proposing the same changes without any attempt to justify them? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We are taking this section by section. Perhaps you'd like to comment?GDD1000 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc has already commented, and you have made no attempt to take those comments on board. If we are to move forwards, presenting the same version that has been much criticised without attempting to make amendments in accordance with that criticism is pointless. The proposed version is unacceptable as BigDunc's comments show, when you have proporsed a version that takes those comments into account we can discuss further. Domer48 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Ok, if BigDunc's ealier comments are the basis of your objections then I will attempt to address those issues to your satisfaction though edit, sourcing or explanation. - later however.GDD1000 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc's comments: Why was this flowery journalistic nonsense added?

1.The first Catholic recruits were to be "A beacon of a new hope in a society torn apart by sectarian strife" Why was this sentence added, using a source that has been amply discredited?

2.Intimidation from within the Roman Catholic community or from the IRA, particularly after internment was introduced. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school Why was this flowery wording used? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

3.The loss of these brave Catholic men to some extent took away the raison d'etre of the regiment This sentence is not adequately sourced, as mentioned above. It was certainly the case in 1990, but was that always the case? Source doesn't say so.

4.The regiment was not permitted to engage in "crowd control" situations

Answers

1. This is a direct lift from the RH. I can provide the page and also who said it.

2. The intimidation quotes are available from the RH and Hansard and a number of other sources. This particular sentence has been used repeatedly.

3. The loss of Catholic recruits is terribly important because the regiment was then left with the Protestant only image of the USC. The word "brave" can be taken out and the sentence rewritten to say something like "The loss of Catholic recruits defeated the idea of having a non-sectarian force as outlined in the Hunt Report."

4. "Crowd control" duties were not permitted - ever. Quotes are available from Hansard and the RH to that effect (if not within the Hunt Report, I haven't checked). This is essential information IMO.

GDD1000 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

When you've done the above, we can discuss it further then. And I will just point out three is unsourced analysis, and rewriting isn't an option. BigDuncTalk 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that later. Rewriting is always an option btw. It has to be shown that the loss of Catholic recruits was SEEN as a serious setback. It helps explain other facets of the article. It's also got to be shown WHY Catholics left so any information on intimidation from Protestants/Loyalists should be sussed out (maybe the RH can provide that) but we have to be even handed and show that the IRA and the Catholic community intimidated people out too. Because it happend and it's verifiable. If you don't want me to write the sentence then you or Domer can do it.GDD1000 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for BigDunc but I have no intention of rewording unsourced analysis. Unsourced analysis does not belong in articles. Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of using unsourced analysis. I can provide proper verification and will do.GDD1000 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, revisions:
1. "Beacon of light etc". Irish News. http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/mar6_UDR_inherits_legacy__RGarland.php. I've been told I can't use Nuzhound however. So I'm prepared to relinquish that quote - unless you now find Nuzhound acceptable?
2. Catholic Intimidation. Verified by USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-31-2102214044_x.htm (associated press). http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/feb/03/ulster-defence-regiment#S5CV0830P0-02514 - chapter and verse, more than we need to include and at http://www.irishnews.com/searchlog.asp?reason=denied_empty&script_name=/pageacc.asp&path_info=/pageacc.asp&tser1=ser&sid=498453 The actual quote used comes from the Irish News (although I used the Nuzhound source which you don't appear to like although Domer seemed to think it was ok to use it elesewhere? This quote is repeated (+ more info) on page 59 of the RH. I've also found a similar quote to be used to show Loyalist intimidation within the regiment. http://www.irishnews.com/searchlog.asp?reason=denied_empty&script_name=/pageacc.asp&path_info=/pageacc.asp&tser1=ser&sid=425628
3.The regimental history quotes the Belfast Telegraph on page 61 with the quote "if Catholics leave the UDR will become Protestant by default". That totally defeats the recomendations of the Hunt Report.
4.Crowd Control: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1990-07-11/Writtens-4.html (not time dependent - a statement of policy). Also on page 19 of the RH.

"This is a direct lift from the RH. I can provide the page and also who said it." - are you now admitting that was a lie? If it is sourced from the appalling written Irish News opinion piece littered with incorrect facts it's flowery journalistic nonsense, if it's a direct quote from someone at the time it might not be. That does not source "Intimidation from within the Roman Catholic community or from the IRA, particularly after internment was introduced. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school", neither does that, and that is a letter written to a newspaper. BigDuncTalk 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you accuse me of lying? That's not a very nice thing to say about someone. Page 59 of the regimental history isn't a lie? Pages 58-60 in fact cite 12 examples of intimidation against Catholic members of the UDR by the IRA or within their own community. Would you like me to scan the pages and upload them as images to verify this aspect of intimidation against Catholics by the IRA and Catholic community or is it enough for you that I cite the pages of the RH?GDD1000 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First you said This is a direct lift from the RH. I can provide the page and also who said it. You then backtracked and said Beacon of light etc. Irish News. http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/mar6_UDR_inherits_legacy__RGarland.php. I've been told I can't use Nuzhound however. So I'm prepared to relinquish that quote - unless you now find Nuzhound acceptable?. So my question was perfectly valid - you claimed the quote was from the RH, and that you knew who said it, but your second comment contradicts that. BigDuncTalk 09:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The details of who said it are in the RH. would you like me to include that as a blockquote in the article? Personally I think that would be an overkill and lay too much weight on a subject which is currently covered by a couple of sentences. Do you now find the Nuzhound quote acceptable backed up by the RH? Do you want those pages scanned and included in the article? Do you have any further objections to the item or can we just go ahead and post it as it is?GDD1000 (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Posting New Edits

As the objections to the history and duties section now seem to be resolved I believe it's time to actually post the information and start to improve the article. If I receive no objections I'll be doing that tomorrow.GDD1000 (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the objections have not been resolved. If you would like to post a new proposed version complete with sources I would be happy to look it over and discuss further. Domer48 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
What's not been resolved then? No point in me writing it up until I'ms ure of the ground.GDD1000 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are not sure what has been resolved and what has not been resolved, why did you assert thst everything had been resolved? As I just said, if you post a new proposed version taking into account the various objections posted above, I can look it over snd discuss further. Domer48 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I felt the discussion was over as no-one had added anything further since my last post. As it is, I did make edits to the items "History & Duties" as per previous discussion, removing some wording and changing others. I will add the sources when it's posted to the main article.GDD1000 (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I found the discussion confusing asnd inconclusive due to your contradictory comments. As I just said, if you post a new proposed version taking into account the various objections posted above, I can look it over snd discuss further. Domer48 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it was confusing - because of the amount of links I had to post and because BigDunc's objections seem to be terribly confusing. I have edited the text above though and await your comments.GDD1000 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First Edits Done

I've done the first couple of edits then in small sections so that various items can be discussed. My head's like a sponge today so I'm not sure if I've got all the links correct as discussed. Happy to discuss further though and make changes based on concensus before moving on to other items for editing.GDD1000 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely unhappy that you have been changes that do not have consensus due to ongoing discussions over sourcing and wording problems. Can you explain why you have again made edits which you know to be disputed, and edits which you have failed to explain the relevance of? Also, earlier you offered to scan various pages from the RH, please provide scans of the pages re intimidation so the extent to which this took place can be determined.Domer48 (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just anxious to move on. I think most of the stuff you disagreed with (and Dunc) is sorted, or can be by tweaking). By no means do I see what I've posted as a finished article. I just think we should start doing something constructive. Certainly, I'll scan the pages. I'll do it right away. Do you want them e-mailed to you or published here?
  • Derry/Londonderry. I know this is a difficult one for everyone so I've amended it to the sop of "Stroke City". If we don't do that we'll have nothing but trouble for ever (Amen) with objectors changing it one way or the other. I'm actually regretfull we even have to post it here but the name is used in the reference. Personally I don't care either way. I soldiered with loads of guys from Derry and that's what they called it - Derry! This politcal ping-ponging of the name bites my shite. GDD1000 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You won't be able to post them here, so email would be best please. I shall review which edits are acceptable and revert or amend any that aren't later, and explanations will be posted here. Domer48 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Also IMOS is agreed on and accepted, we do not use "Derry/Londonderry", we use Derry only. Please do not amend this against Wikipedia consensus again. Domer48 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ref the Derry thing. Thanks for the heads up on that but that leaves us with a dilemna. The Hansard quote refers to the "City of Londonderry". We need to make a decision. Perhaps put a qualifier in afterwards in brackets which says (this link refers to the City of Londonderry) or words to that effect. I honestly don't mind what term is used but you know as well as I do the crap we're going to take over this.GDD1000 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we try this "City of Londonderry (sic)"?GDD1000 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no real need for a qualifier. The agreement on IMOS exists to prevent nonstop changing from Derry to Londonderry and vice versa. It is regularly changed on various articles by new editors or IP editors, and it gets changed back to the agreed form. Domer48 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're actually quoting something that says "City of Londonderry" then just pipe it - [[Derry|City of Londonderry]]. Regardless of MOS concerns, we don't change quotes. If you're just referring to a reference which uses the term, then just use Derry; there's no point in confusing readers and anyone who goes as far as looking up the quote will probably be familiar with the double naming. Black Kite 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the whole fuss about the name is nonsensical and un-necessary. It was called Derry for hundreds of years until somebody made a political point about it being called Londonderry. I've made much about my lack of political concerns in this discussion and I'm not about to change now. If Domer feels strongly enough about it then let it remain as Derry and I will defend that from vandals. Sorry if I provoked an unwarrented item of discussion. My intentions were honourable.GDD1000 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not a case that I feel so strongly enough about it, the IMOS compromise is accepted by virtually all editors. Granted you did not know about it, so made a good faith effort to compromise without realising the convention we already have. Domer48 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I just know the shite we're going to have to put up with. Every rabid loyalist in the world will be trying to change it as will any ex-UDR guys. I was looking for the soft way out.GDD1000 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Various points:

  • As discussed above, the Hansard reference does not state that the information was always UDR policy, only that it was policy in 1990. Therefore I have removed this, it is not properly sourced and should not have been added when questions about this were not satisfactorily answered.
  • "The loss of these Catholic men etc" is unsourced analysis, and you yourself agreed that unsourced analysis did not belong in the article. Therefore I have removed this, and would like an explanation as to why it was added again when you knew it should not have been added.
  • Collusion in "History" section. Redundant duplication, so removed.
  • Information cards section. Despite a request you have failed to demonstrate the relevance of this addition to the section, or indeed the relevance of the section as a whole. I have removed the addition as its relevance has not been explained, and would recommend you explain the relevance of the rest of the section otherwise it may be removed.
  • Intimidation. This section was not properly sourced, it was an attempt to add sources that vaguely sourced the existing text rather than accurately report what the sources said, and in some cases over-exaggerated the extent of intimidation based on single reported examples. Therefore I have replaced it with a single sentence, which accurately outlines the situation.

Further discussion is needed on all of these points before any of the information is added back. Domer48 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. . The UDR were never intended for crowd control. There is at least one reference in the regimental history to that and the reason why; the government were worried that a situation would occur, as with the B Men, that armed Protestants would face unarmed Catholics in crowd control situations - hence the ban and the total absence of riot training. As to West Belfast and Derry I have no other information at the moment.
  2. . It's not unsourced, I just decided to write it rather than quote from the RH again. The loss of Catholics was a disaster for the UDR and I think that should be shown. It's a very important aspect of the history, more so than the collusion item. The 1973 report only mentions the potential of between 5-15% of members possibly colluding with paramilitaries. The loss of the 18% initial Catholic recruits is proven.
  3. . I agree. I missed that.
  4. . Without that letter the information card item is unsourced. It is a verifiable souce (CAIN) and I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. There is also a reference to the Yellow Card in the RH which states that soldiers had to learn it "parrot fashion". I can't see why you're objecting, this isn't a contentious item?
  5. . The pages I e-mailed to you contained a strong resume of the types of intimidation used and included 12 examples (if not more). Why do you then assert it isn't properly sourced? Would you prefer I used that potted version or would you like me to write a nice long quote from the RH on how Catholics were intimidated out by the IRA and their own community and include all those examples?GDD1000 (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Info Panel

I hope the small variations I've done to the military info panel don't annoy anyone. The simple fact of the matter is: that logo wasn't the proper badge (as I think we all knew). As a result of including the regimental marches in the info panel I've removed them from the body of the article under "music". No point in having them in twice. If anyone has any objections to what I've done please let me know.GDD1000 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Next Change

I propose as the next item to be changed that the section below be used to replace the currect section on Collusion. I've changed the heading to what I think it should be. There are enough proven cases in the piece to do so in my opinion. The only alteration apart from that is that the piece on the Miami Showband Massacre has been highlighted. I propose that we use this format instead of having a repeat section on the Miami Massacre below. So my plan is to delete that if we use this item. Does anyone have any comments or objections?

Can we deal with one section at a time here please. BigDuncTalk 08:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Towel now officially thrown in. Enjoy your editing.GDD1000 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


WP:NOTMEMORIAL

The above would apply if an extend list of names was applied. The three names are notable as it indicates a unique element to the article. The addition is not within the bounds of NOTMEMORIAl as it is not intended to be a memorial, but it does add to the flow of the sentence and adds a beneficial element to the article.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose it would be a beneficial element to the article and I would have no objections to it being put back in the article. BigDuncTalk 19:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

TU's revert

Perhaps TU would like to look at the difference between my version and his last version here and stop reverting edits that were removing factual inaccuracies and restoring information to their correct place in the article? Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it to make a comment on ho many soldiers were murdered. You removed references to the Provos murdering soldiers though, which I reinstated.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No I did not, check the diff properly. I moved it back to its original place before it was moved in this edit, which you can see by my edit. I will now reinstate the original version, complete with your minor wording change. Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit simply removes the fact that the Provos murdered most UDR soldiers who died. If the numbers are wrong, fix them.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually scrolled down to look at the entire edit? It doesn't remove anything, it moves it back to its original place. Please check properly before making unfounded accusations. Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Where it moves it to doesn't fit. It makes no sense to discuss the murder of a few soldiers, then later in the article explain who murdered the rest in a sentence which starts with details of soldiers engaged in illegality. There is no structure to that.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well change it to something better, instead of arguing on here. Would you like to apologise for repeatedly claiming I'd removed information when I hadn't? Domer48 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

TU could you please provide the text of the Robert White document cited that supports the current text, thanks. BigDuncTalk 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a quotation in the reference. If you search for the article on google scholar you'll be able to see a snippit that will verify the text.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the quote seems unrelated to what is in the article. Perhaps you could just give me the link to where I can see this snippet please? BigDuncTalk 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you search scholar.google.com.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a link to google scholar, where I can search for millions of things. Can you give me a direct link to where the snippet can be viewed please? BigDuncTalk 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to search for what you're looking for. Like entering the piece of text that is indicated to be directly after the portion you're looking for.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no snippet. So please stop this disruptive stonewalling, and provide the link that has been asked for several times now. BigDuncTalk 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Seen as your online TU any chance for the link or quote please. BigDuncTalk 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This request breeches WP:AGF. However, as I am not in any dishonest in my referencing, this once I will comply.

This is referenced to Bruce, The Edge of the Union (note 11) pp.47-8 in the original text.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TU and remember WP:AAGF.BigDuncTalk 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC Source wording

it has been argued is what the source says, but putting were also perceived as, is turning the source round. One or more people are arguing a certain thing, but that doesn't mean other people perceive it that way. As always with controversial subjects, the closer we stick to the sources the better, but I am being prevented from doing that here and here.BigDuncTalk 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been argued is what the first source says, the second (Bruce) says it as fact. So in all what is there is pretty fair.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the current editing on this article is to provide as comprehensive and factual an article as can be achieved in the most encyclopedic fashion. The edits of BigDunc are appearing as POV pushing and trying to put a slant on the article which should not exist in this arena. I am therefore asking that BigDunc retire from the article and allow people with a more balanced viewpoint to edit it to completion.The Thunderer (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

User BigDunc has informed me through my talk page that he has acquired the (I assume) two regimental histories of the Ulster Defence Regiment and that he wishes to continue editing using those as a basis for information. No-one, certainly not I, can have any serious objections to that. I have read both books and know they contain many facts which are absent from this article. I have also been basing most of my recent edits on them. I am prepared to extend good faith to BigDunc and offer assistance in deciphering some of the more obscure military terminology in order to assist him. Perhaps now, those of us who are most interested in this article, can concentrate on improving what is already here and adding what is necessary to present as complete an encyclopedic picture as possible to readers.The Thunderer (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing me to edit this article and also thank you for showing me good faith, which I thought you are supposed to do all along, sorry just hang on till I take my tongue out of my cheek. See WP:OWN, this is not your article and any editor is free to edit it so long as they abide by the rules laid out by wiki. BigDuncTalk 08:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not "allowing" you to edit this article. It isn't my place to do so. I was opposing your continued presence because your edits appeared disruptive but you've put your cards on the table and said you intend to work with me and others rather than trying to subvert what we're including. Hopefully after you've read some of the regimental histories you'll see what I'm driving at. My advice to you is to separate your passion for all things Irish from the agenda. You've got to take a step back and view this regiment from an outsider's perspective rather than trying to make them look bad, or good, because your own (understandable and forgivable) loyalties. That goes for me too and anyone else who edits anything on Wikipedia. As for good faith: I have no difficulties there, I hope you reciprocate.The Thunderer (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "caindoc" :
    • [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm CAIN Archive:Public Records: Subversion in the UDR] Although initially written in 1973, the report was only declassified in 2004.
    • [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm CAIN Archive:Public Records: Subversion in the UDR]

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bernadette Devlin

Quote: "The regiment was condemned before its formation in the House of Commons in Stormont by Bernadette Devlin..." This could not have happened because Bernadette Devlin was never a member of the House of Commons in Stormont. Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I'll need to check the reference in the book and see if I've written it down wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. The Thunderer (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You were absolutely correct on this. I've amended the error. Thanks for pointing it out.The Thunderer (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Collusion with paramilitaries

This item needs to stay in otherwise there is undue weight on Loyalist paramilitaries being the only people who used membership of the UDR/army to pass information to their organisations in order to steal weapons or target individuals. Obviously Loyalist influences are much greater in this case but there is definitely case to be made for the Sean Garland's of this world passing info to the IRA. Remember the 50's campaign only finished in 1962, just seven years before the UDR Act was proposed. I will continue to defend the inclusion of this item and will be adding information to it about IRA dual membership in due course. The Thunderer (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Garland wasn't a UDR member and this article is about the UDR not about collusion in general. There is no undue weight, that would happen if we were ignoring UDR members cooperating with the IRA/holding dual membership and that would need a source. Valenciano (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I do agree with Valenciano here.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Valenciano on this too. BigDuncTalk 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a source and I have it. BigDunc apparantly does too but it seems easier for him to remove copy rather than improve or add. In my opinion the wording on collusion is fine and I will defend its retention.The Thunderer (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is not relevant. The article is about the UDR not the Troubles. An incident from 8 years or more before the UDR's creation fails to create context and has been included as a feeble attempt at balance along the lines of ". . . look, both sides have colluded". I agree with the consensus expressed here - Delete. --MJB (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I Agree, it's irrelevant, and also, no reliable source is cited that calls it collusion.--Domer48'fenian' 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's totally relevant. Both sides copied each other. Simple as that. You can't write an article about the UDR without using parallels from the previous troubles. The UDR is an intrinsic part of the troubles too. You've got to mention the B Specials etc etc. The IRA infiltrated the army in the 50's troubles and did it again in the most recent ones. To a much lesser extent than the Loyalists (obviously) because of the demographics. I've introduced this information however and it's relevant. I will be corroborating it further quite shortly. You're not going to achieve concensus on this by bullying, tag teaming or edit warring either so just content yourself with the introduction of new, verified, properly referenced additions. Alison has already pointed out that the info is relevant and that's good enough for me.The Thunderer (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one for you read WP:CONSENSUS, and Admins don't decide content disputes BigDuncTalk 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, but admins, like the more aware among us, can spot tag teaming and forced edit wars from miles away. Do you think I came down the Bann in a bubble or something? Contribute, as you said you would, and stop gaming.The Thunderer (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
And who is this tag team? Valenciano, Jdorney and now MJB all part of my big conspiracy against you even TU agrees with the edit I made is he with me now too? BigDuncTalk 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would really rather I wasn't so repeatedly referred to in such terms. Saying that "even" I agree with something very much suggests that I am on the extreme end of a debate.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I mean TU and I dont mean to imply anything like what you said. It's just that we so very rarely agree on things surrounding the troubles. So no offence intended. And I hope how your not too aggrieved at being accused of being on my team.BigDuncTalk 21:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just noted that Max has made what I consider to be a sensible edit to the item. Removing what he considers "emotive terms" and on reflection he's right. If there was more constructive editing like that I'd just shut up and let everyone get on with it. As for tag-teaming; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - then it's assumed to be a duck. If you see your edits are causing a problem, back off, discuss and agree a way forward. Try and railroad your way to getting your own way is counterproductive - for all of us.The Thunderer (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh lets hope you mean what you say and we wont see you reverting 6 times again. BigDuncTalk 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Be productive and not disruptive then you won't have any problems with me. I can be just as thrawn as you - as you're probably noticing. Throw me a bone however and I'll sit in my corner chewing it and stop biting your arse.The Thunderer (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like the wording on the Willie Bogle item in Collusion then change it to something more suitable whilst retaining the facts. It isn't deliberately provocative; it's true, it happened and it's verifiable. It proves (at least up to this point) that at least one IRA man was also in the UDR. The entire point of that section is to show that, whilst Loyalist paramilitary collusion was dominant, there was at least SOME similar activity carried out by the IRA.The Thunderer (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Garland information again as consensus here is clear and there are no sources describing it as collusion. Bogle has also been removed, as conclusions are being made that are not present in the source. The source never says he was in the IRA when he was in the UDR or indeed never says he was in the IRA at all and also never mentions collusion. All it talks about is the death nothing about collusion. Blueputtnam (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Seen as you have reverted again 3 times since final warning from Alison, Thunderer could you tell exactly where in the source it states that he was a member of the IRA and also where it says that it was an act of collusion thanks. BigDuncTalk 11:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the information plus more, because I'm still working on the content of the item. These reverts are disrupting my editing of the item as I try to add more information. Collusion is seen here as dual membership for the purpose of acquiring information, weaponry or training. If someone was a member of the UDR, got what they needed then resigned then carried out any crime it still stands that it was potentially as a result of their membership. Or that they joined for spurious reasons. The insight being that, if a UDR soldier was also a member of the IRA they "could have" passed information or weaponry or at least used the benefit of their training to assist with IRA operations - same for the UVF or whatever other groupings existed. To summarise: the quote proves that the UDR was infiltrated by the IRA as well as Loyalist groupings.The Thunderer (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I asked above could you show me exactly where it states it please.BigDuncTalk 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to reflect what the source says. Why couldn't you do that? Is your input here going to be interminably confined to deletions and complaints about content? You have the book, use it and help me rather than being obstructive.The Thunderer (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking

All of this posturing, nitpicking, deletions, reverts, edit wars etc is great fun I'm sure you'll agree but have any of you people ever thought of actually contributing something to this article? As far as I can see yez are sat there like vultures on a tree waiting to pounce on something that's close enough to death for you to get your beak into. This item on collusion is a perfact example. All along you guys have been trying to delete something which indicates there was IRA dual membership too - I wonder why that might be. Now that the item is being built up with further corroborating evidence of UDR/Loyalist collusion it's starting to be much more encyclopedic and informative. It could be so much better if there was collaboration. with all your intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policy, Irish history and superior writing skills do you not think it would be a great idea if you'd get stuck in there and help with the syntax, rewriting wording which is too emotive and generally improving the article? Or do you feel you've been put on this earth to be pedantic and delete contributed material because a word or two doesn't meet with your approval? I've said this before and I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face - don't just delete, get involved. Help create something worthwhile.The Thunderer (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunc do not presume to be able to remove my comments from this talk page just because you don't agree with them. Regardless of whether or not you like the above it is an impassioned plea, made sincerely, for people to join in the editing process.The Thunderer (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:TPG it states Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. So your diatribe is not here to help the article but harrass another editor. BigDuncTalk 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not a personal view, nor is it harrassment. It is one very sincere editor asking for the assistance of others and for an end to the senseless edit warring. You indicated over a week ago that you had the correct reference books and were going to use them to improve the article. I ask you again, as I have been doing for days. Where are the comments I have been asking for on cited material? What suggestions have you made to help others improve the article? What information have you added to the article? Have you gone in and tidied up syntax? Have you reshaped paragraphs to remove doubtful synthesis of citations? I'm not asking you these things because I think they're going to annoy you. I'm asking because of a genuine wish on my behalf to see you involved in a productive editing process on this article.The Thunderer (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who is edit warring 4 different editors change something and you revert them all will you practice what you keep preaching. BigDuncTalk 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You can see quite easily from the information added today that the item in question makes perfect sense now. There was nothing to stop anyone else from adding the required information to make it so. Improve - don't delete; that is my respectful request to you and the others. I'll take your lack of thanks for changing the reference on IRA to "Republicans" as an oversight on your part. I certainly don't want to accuse you of bad faith.The Thunderer (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Collusion - some points for discussion

I realise that the debate on this has been long and hard and that I've only just come across it, but I'd like to propose some topics for discussion here.

  • Collusion. The words mean 'co-operation'. The allegation here is that the UDR, or some of its members, voluntarily co-operated with loyalist paramilitaries.

The point that is being made is that the UDR, or again, some parts of it, saw themselves as being on the same 'side' as the loyalists in the conflict. Hence they gave them arms, intelligence, etc.

  • This is not the same thing as an antagonistic organisation - such as the IRA, infiltrating a British Army unit in the 1950s. It is a qualitively different thing. The loyalists are alleged to have recieved help from the UDR, the republicans may have stolen arms or information from them. No one is suggesting that the UDR 'colluded' in this sense with republicans, ie helped them and sympathised with their objectives.
  • I understand that Thunderer is arguing that the UDR was a peacekeeping organisation in the middle of an ethnic conflict, which is one of several competing interpretations of the Troubles, and that it was used and abused equally by rival paramilitaries. Needless to say this is a contested view and it seems to me that the initial discussion of a republican arms raid in the 1950s amounts to special pleading.

Jdorney (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome the chance to discuss this issue. The term "Collusion" was on the page before I started editing the article and it implies that the UDR as a whole co-operated with Loyalist paramilitaries. I believe the term was coined by Nationalist politicians so perhaps we do need to look at how we present that to people wishing to use the article as an encyclopedic source. Certainly there's no accusation in there that the UDR colluded with anyone. What is clear is that there were people in the regiment who either joined to gain intellgence or weapons training for use in another organisation, or to find out how to steal weaponry. Additionally there were people who used UDR weapons and information to target/murder/kill their real or imagined enemies. In this context the so called collusion is very similar to the infiltration carried out by Garland, which was why I introduced that subject matter for consideration. Apart from it being a compariosn and good background it's also relevant that some of the weapons stolen by Garland's team were used in the post 1969 period. So should we rename that section "Infiltration by paramilitaries"? I don't think we can restrict the entire subject to loyalists because I have come across three instances of Republicans also infiltrating the regiment and there could be others. For obvious reasons the instances of loyalist infiltration are going to be much higher but I think it needs to be shown that both sides of the intercommunal struggle were prepared to use these tactics.The Thunderer (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask you all to note that I have opened a work page User:The Thunderer/Ulster Defence Regiment where we can make changes to the site for inclusion after the ban has been lifted.The Thunderer (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you have your view and that is perfectly legitimate but let's acknowledge that there are two competing interpretations here. The article should really take account of both views.
Your view is that the UDR as an institution was abused by paramilitaries on both sides and there just happened to be more loyalists. From this point of view, it was a criminal problem that the unit's commanders had to deal with. But even taking this view, I think that the Garland stuff is just irrelevant. Relevant to a wider article about collusion maybe but just confusing here.
The other view, held by some nationalists, is that the UDR was a fundamentally biased organisation that cooperated, with the knowledge of its command structures, or parts thereof, with loyalist paramilitaries. This is what 'collusion' means and it's a very different allegation from infiltration by the odd paramilitary without the knowledge of anyone in authority.
I think we should be presenting both sides, but for the sake of openess, I'm going to put my cards on the table and give my own opinion. I think that the UDR was compromised to some degree by its relationship with loyalist paramilitaries. I think that many in the force shared the ethos of the loyalists, sympathised with them gave them weapons and intelligence. I think that a blind eye was turned to this by at least part of the UDR's leadership. The Republican viewpoint is that the loyalists were doing unofficially what the Crown Forces wanted to do but could not claim. Personally I think this is an exagerration, becuase there was an effort made in the 1980s to weed out paramilitaries in the RUC and UDR, but nor do I think that the UDR was a neutral force in the conflict.
Jdorney (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I respect your views entirely and it is this balancing of facts that I'm seeking when editing this article. It's difficult to find unbiased comment on the UDR and WP policy is to verify claims from reputable sources. Unfortunately then you get opinions from those sources too. I'll address your issues one by one with my honest viewpoint.
  • I included the Garland item because I am not aware of any collusion/infiltration of army units prior to then and it is essential that we show that both sides of the conflict were able to employ the same means to achieve their ends. I don't think the UDR was compromised itself, I believe its reputation was lowered by individuals, sometimes acting in concert (gangs or cells). With it being predominantly Protestant it therefore looked as if the Loyalists had some kind of association with the regiment. From what I've read so far (and that's quite a lot) that isn't the case. Did the Ministry of Defence, Westminster, Stormont, the police, HQNI and HQUDR and individual battalion commanders turn a blind eye? No, but I do think there was a perception amongst them that, as the IRA were the enemy and they were mainly from Catholic areas, that murders carried out by Loyalist gangs were doing what the army wasn't allowed to do - eliminate suspects.
  • I agree with the Nationalist perception. I also believe it was artificially enhanced by political argument. Until I read the books I didn't know that 3 UDR was 30% Catholic initially and that they retained the highest proportion of Catholics throughout the troubles. Nor did I know that the Unionists complained that 3 UDR gave preferential treatment to Catholics for promotion. It stands to reason that the SDLP and Sinn Fein didn't want Catholics to join as it would have defeated that part of their political agenda so they wouldn't brag about the high number of Catholics in 3 UDR, which was one of the most active anti-terrorist units throughout the conflict. For those reasons, and others, I don't think you can say there was institutionalised collusion, which is what that item suggests.
  • I agree almost entirely with your third point. I think KNOW individuals did give weapons to Loyalists and also gave them intelligence to allow them to steal large quantities of arms and to kill people but I now also know that some Catholic soldiers did the same (which I didn't before). I think that is countered to a large extent by the reports I have read of UDR patrols themselves actually catching these people and recovering their own weapons. From that I conclude that the vast majority of the Protestants in the regiment were acting with lawful intention and that a fewer number, who'd managed to slip through vetting, (sometimes for years - some of these guys were senior nco's) were intent upon breaking the law and using their knowledge of the military for sectarian murder.
I think we're reading from the same hymnsheet don't you? Mayhap I have the current advantage because I have the correct tomes beside me but it's up to me then to give you and others the facts at my disposal and ask for your help in editing the article in an encyclopedic fashion. I have set up a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and request that you get stuck in and start editing. The talk page there has other well balanced comments on it.The Thunderer (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You know your stuff. The only problem I have is that you're moving straight from argument to conclusion in the article, which a wikipedia article shouldn't do. In other words, because of the information you have, you are arguing that the UDR was not guilty of institutionalised collusion and the paragraph as it stands now argues this case. Maybe you're right but I don't think this is how a wp article should read.

What I would like to see is that the reader is told that there was a problem with paramilitaries operating in the UDR. Then that these were mostly but not only loyalists. They should then be told that one interpretation of this is that the UDR as an institution colluded with loyalists and the other view is that the organisation had a problem with infiltration by paramilitary elements. At this point the evidence for and against should be presented. We would then be in a better position to talk about the pov.

I think we can see eye to eye on this alright. But purely on the pov issue, don't you think that the fact that elements of the security forces looked benignly (or more benignly anyway) on the loyalists means that they were compromised to some extent in terms of neutrality? I would accept that this happened in the context of a great deal of their members being assassinated by the IRA (mostly when off-duty and defenceless), but the fact remains that many nationalists (and not only republicans) did see the UDR as a partisan force and I think the article should acknowledge this.

I'll do some work on the workpage in the coming week and lets see where to go from there. Jdorney (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I moved from argument to conclusion was that's how the official regimental history concluded it but I have to bear in mind that it was written by a Major from the UDR - I need to cross reference with the Chris Ryder book, he was more critical. Professor Bruce's comments are interesting though. As is the information about the Stevens Enquiry. It's looking very much like the Nationalist parties, particularly Sinn Fein, wanted the regiment to be perceived as partisan to get it out of the way as it was effective in restricting the movements of PIRA, whereas the British Ministry of Defence weren't having any of it and continued to put the argument up that they couldn't free 9 battalions from the regular army to do the same job. Of course 9 battalions of untried British troops would probably have found they had the Provisonals running rings round them and HQNI knew that. I think the SDLP concerns are more valid but I can't make any sense of out them making accusations of sectarianism in the regiment but failing to press for Catholics to join to redress the balance, although Austin Curry's brother was a member - how long did he remain as a member? The overall balance seems to be in favour of infiltration being small-time. Of course it only takes one man to hand over the keys to an armoury and hundreds of modern rifles and machine guns go missing. This is how Garland did it and it is clear it happened more than once with Loyalist sympathisers or paramilitaries who served as soldiers. The UDR seem to have managed to recover most of the weapons stolen by Loyalists however whereas few of the ones stolen by Garland were ever found. On a more sinister note, there seems to have been cases when soldiers of both religions had their weapons "stolen" in dubious circumstances and continued to do duties. I think the benign attitude of soldiers of both the UDR and regular army was more to do initially with the fact that it was the IRA they were there to oppose. The Loyalist paramilitaries held no threat to state security. There seems to have been a general perception that the RUC could handle the Loyalists because they had them well infiltrated but again there is conflicting evidence about this because there are many recorded instances of the UDR catching Loyalists with weapons or commiting crime and arresting them. The upshot of it is; my original perception that the UDR must have been riddled with Loyalists was wrong. They were there ok, but not in great numbers and were under constant threat of being discovered and kicked out - same goes for Republicans who managed to infiltrate 3 UDR and 7/10 where most Catholics were (especially 3). I think we need to reduce the collusion article but I don't want to be the one who does it. (I think I'm tainted lol). My original concept was that it concentrated too much on the Nationalist accusations of constant collusion and it's easy to refute a lot of that now. Rather than showing tit-for-tat collusion I think it could be stripped down to the fact that collusion did exist, primarily on the Loyalist side but also to a smaller extent with Republicans. Keep the Miami showband item in because it's notable but remove caggage like people breaking down in pubs and confessing. We know it happened and to try and list every instance of collusion just puts undue weight on it. We also need to balance the accusations with the information about the constant SDLP accusations, much of which appears to have been frivolous. What do you think, did that all make sense?The Thunderer (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryder is equally obscure. Bearing in mind his book came out before amalgamation. He lists more criminality but sums it up by saying that "some members prejudiced the regiment's reputation". He is more critical in other areas.The Thunderer (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That all gives us plenty to work with. I'd like to do some work on your workpage before we discuss it further.

On the wider point, you could say that the fact that the UDR was there to oppose the IRA and uphold the integrity of NI goes to the heart of the problem. In ideal circumsances the SDLP would have encouraged catholics to join, but given the contested nature of NI as it then existed, they couldn't or wouldn't do this. The fact that the UDR and the loyalists were in existence for the same reasons provided the context in which collusion/infiltration occurred. Going further down this road we'd get mired in whether people should have been accepting NI's exisence, 1922, 1969, etc etc, all of which is way beyond the scope of this article.

Anyway, I agree, trim the collusion section, lose the pov and put more facts in and I'll be happy. Let's talk more then. Jdorney (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're on the right track there but there seem to be other factors which influenced the SDLP and Catholics. I think I've covered them reasonably well in the sections I've set up but to summarise:
  • The SDLP were initially in favour. Austin Curry's own brother was one of the first recruits.
  • SDLP support vanished after internment. It seems that no Protestant paramilitaries were interned and the entire exercise looked like a pogrom against the minority community.
  • Catholics were heavily intimidated. Given the numbers killed as a "lesson" it looks like any Catholic who joined was issuing his own death warrant as well as him and his immediate family members suffering grievous harrassment in their normal daily lives.
  • Catholics in general followed the SDLP lead after internment and saw Crown security forces as increasingly anti-Catholic. I think this could be expanded further as I believe British army recruitment figures suffered in general with much fewer Catholics joing the regular army when it had previously been seen as a respectable thing to do to avoid unemployment and seek adventure. I don't have any citations for that though.
  • The Church couldn't be persuaded to put their weight behind encouraging Catholic recruitment. Even Brigadier Ormerod who was a Catholic and (by chance) the senior Catholic officer of the British army serving in Norn Irn, couldn't manage to persuade Bishops and Cardinals to stand up and ask people to join.

The evidence thus far obtained would bring one to speculate that if the SDLP and the Church had thrown their weight behind recruitment things may have been different but that is pure conjecture. Your rewrite on collusion/infiltration is excellent. I will continue to proof read and provide sources where necessary - thanks for your continued involvement.The Thunderer (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)You state " ... The SDLP were initially in favour. Austin Curry's own brother was one of the first recruits...." Surely this is not evidence of the SDLP being in favour? You could put him into 'notable member'?

There are other available comments from the SDLP leadership from 1970 which show they were clearly in favour and initially issued public statements encouraging Catholics to join. I don't know Austin Curry's brother's full name or anything about him to include him in the notables. The only reference to him in the Potter or Ryder books is "Austin Curry's brother".The Thunderer (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article. I'll just note that any edit warring, even the slightest, will result in blocks and or re-protection, so please, use this talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get to work and watch out for anything untoward which I will report to you if it happens. The Thunderer (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'll be doing is replacing the content with the stuff off my workpage as it's more up to date and has been the subject of some concensus.The Thunderer (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is to remind all concerned that this article and its talk page plainly fall within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. The case remedies and enforcement provisions include these:

To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles ... any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. ... Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

And hopefully that'll be the one and only time anyone will need to mention this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Angus. I'm very pleased you have taken an interest. I hope you will look in from time-to-time to ensure editing is progressing under the conditions you have spelled out above. The Thunderer (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So why is it 'protected' again for 3 weeks now? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not Gavin. I think the tag was just left there. It's been removed now. The Thunderer (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I received a note saysing it should hve been on this 'talk' page. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no answer to that but I do know the page is unprotected. The Thunderer (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Areas of recruitment

From which specific counties did the most recruitment come from? I would immagine along the border: Tyrone, Armagh, Fermanagh. What about Belfast?jeanne (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The regimental history records 6 UDR (Tyrone) as being the most healthy from the outset. 2 (Armagh) UDR had the most serious issues recruiting because they had the highest casualty rates although 4 UDR (Fermanagh) which was similar didn't seem to have the same recruitment problems. Generally, recruiting seems to have been reasonably equal in all areas in the early days. The USC numbers in the border battalions, apart from 3 UDR, were higher than elsewhere with 6 UDR being 75% ex-USC on the day it commenced duties. Belfast and Co Down had the lowest number of USC recruits which they put down to two facts: the USC in Belfast operated as policemen (not militia like the border guys) so they were drawn to the RUC Reserve. In 3, Co Down UDR, there seems to have been a lot of dissent amongst the ex USC with a lot of resignations before disbandment. Remarkably the number of Catholics in the 3rd and 7th battalions then was much higher with 3 UDR being 30% initially and having a higher preponderance of Catholic NCO's and officers. 3 UDR operated on the south Down border and it would appear they suffered most from the exodus of Catholics through intimidation, particularly in C Company, Newry. 3 UDR also came in for a lot of political attention because Mr Paisley and others complained there was a preference and preferential treatment to promotion for Catholics. The Thunderer (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had assumed Belfast didn't feature largely in the recruitment. The UDR man I personally encountered whilst stopped in Belfast was from Tyrone.
I think you've mistaken my intention there. Belfast (7 UDR)had a good number of recruits but not USC members and a higher preponderance of Catholics. A second Belfast battalion was formed in 72/73 which was 10 UDR. After that, 7 UDR were City based while 10 were operating more on the periphery of Greater Belfast and the surrounding towns and villages. It would appear the UDR were always short of administration staff because of a poor establishment which was never changed so when they merged 7 and 10 to form 7/10 UDR I presume they finished up with a larger admin section. They certainly had the largest battalion in the British Army at that time numbering about 1,300 (if my memory serves me right) - I think you'd have to go back to WW1 to find similar battalion numbers. Interestingly they also amalgamated 1 & 9 (both Co Antrim) at that time and started moving units from there to other battalion areas because both Antrim battalions, whilst well provided for in numbers, saw little action in the early to mid 70's. If you look at the roll of honour you'll notice that 1 UDR had no casualties. I think 1/9 didn't fare as well because they were heavily committed to reinforcing 2 UDR in South Armagh and 7/10 in Belfast. You'll find that after the commencement of the UDR Province Reserve and the institution of Operations Platoons and (later) full time companies, that most UDR units who were not fully committed or under pressure, detached platoons and companies for up to two weeks at a time to 2 UDR. 2 UDR also had a regular battalion under tactical command at Armagh as well as the roulemont battalion from Bessbrook. From this it would appear that both 2 UDR and the neighbouring 3 UDR had very strong command and control skills which they had developed over many years. That didn't seem to be enough to save their C Company base in the isolated village of Glenanne though. It was wiped out by a 2500lb lorry bomb in 1991. So even with all those troops under command and the various intelligence available, they (2 UDR) were still the most vulnerable unit. The Thunderer (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That was a very concise explanation. It should feature in the article, however, not just the discussion page. My assumption was that men from the cities such as Belfast and Derry would have opted for the (then legal) UDA rather than UDR, seeing as the latter was a militia and part of the British Army, whereas the UDA was a local defense organistion and autonomous with it's own military command. Militias seem to mostly attract men from rural areas rather than urban. I'm not trying to be polemic or controversial, just offering a personal observation. Thunderer, you are clearly an expert on this subject so you can correct me if my assumptions are wrong.--jeanne (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is a synthesis of what I know and as such it wouldn't be appropriate to include it. The facts are there however. Your point about the UDA is valid but they weren't formed until after the UDR. Had they come first I'm sure the story would have been different. As it was there were some serious concerns about dual membership which are still political today. Ciao bella. ;) The Thunderer (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems that most UDR recruits came from areas which had seen much IRA activity; also most accounts of UDR collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries occur in largely Nationalist areas such as Tyrone, Newry, South Armagh. The horrific Miami Showband massacre took place outside Newry. Also, now correct me if I'm mistaken, but it appears that dual membership occured more frequently between the UDR and UVF than the UDA. Why was that? How would things have been different had the UDA come on the scene before the UDR? The UVF was formed back in 1912.--jeanne (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually no. Recruiting was much more general than that. 1 & 9 UDR based in Co Antrim had loads of recruits but that was a relatively unscathed area during the troubles and they saw more actions aginst Loyalists than they did against the IRA, hence the fact that they were amalgamated pretty early on and were also amongst the first to go on Province Reserve - they were patrolling their own areas but little was happening there so they moved them to where they could be of more use. Also, where incidents took place isn't where the collusion happened. The Miami massacre was carried out by Portadown UVF and was on 11 UDR's (Portadown) patch on the A1 between Banbridge and Newry. 11 UDR's turf extended to the Sheepbridge Inn. Dual membership seems to have occurred mostly between the UDA and UDR but that's no failsafe guide because many members of the UDA were also in the UVF - as with the Miami murderers. The current UVF bears no relation to the organisation of 1912 btw. It was absorbed into the B Specials. The name was revived in 1966 but they were small and had no real teeth until the UDA came along around 71/72. I think you'll find that most collusion attempts or penetration took place in the largely Loyalist areas of 7, 10 and 11 battallions and to some extent in 2 and 5 UDR (that I can remember). I'm not saying there was NO collusion in the other battalions but the ones I've named certainly had armouries raided or had men expelled for dual membership, or even had members imprisoned for crimes related to Loyalist terror groups.The Thunderer (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally know of a case in Tyrone where a murder involving the UVF was carried out with a weapon provided by a member of the UDR. But you did not answer my question as to how the UDA forming before the UDR would have made a difference. There are rumours that UDR members were involved in the May 1974 Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Any truth in that allegation? If the current UVF bear no relation to the original formed in 1912 which had fought so valiantly at the Somme in 1916 as the 36th Ulster Division, why do so many UVF murals depict the Somme? I once saw a splendid mural on Island Street in East Belfast depicting the officers of the 36th. Another thing we must remember when discussing the UDA is that they were legal up to the early 1990's so many UVF members could shelter legally under the UDA umbrella, so to speak.--jeanne (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"If the current UVF bear no relation to the original formed in 1912 which had fought so valiantly at the Somme in 1916 as the 36th Ulster Division, why do so many UVF murals depict the Somme?" ... er, perhaps because the current UVF wishes to portray itself as being somehow connected to the original UVF? Mooretwin (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeanne, you're asking me to speculate on answers to questions which I don't know. What I do know is that, legal or not, membership of the UDA would get you dismissed from the UDR. I'm sure there's information about that in the article. Also, as Mooretwin quite rightly asserts, the post 1966 UVF used the name and all that was associated with it to try and win support. As for the UDR/UDA "chicken & egg" situation. One can only assume that had the UDA come first, there may have been a larger membership because no official force existed (in the minds of Protestants) to fight the IRA and "defend Ulster"? Pure speculation however. The Thunderer (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes you and Mooretwin are obviously right. In Peter Taylor's book "Loyalists", he interviews Billy Giles who admits that he chose the UVF because of it's "romantic" links with the 36th Ulster Division and the Somme which appealed to his youthful idealism. Taylor repeatedly mentions collusion between members of the UDR and UVF (rarely UDA) in his book. In point of fact, he says that members of the UDR may have had a hand in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. I notice Taylor is quick to let the UDR take the rap for events which have more than a whiff of British Intelligence involvement such as the Dublin bombings and Miami Showband. He also implies that the UDR passed on information to the UVF team who carried out the Cappagh murders.--jeanne (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The intelligence community seem to weave a nefarious network. If this book yields more information on collusion or alleged collusion though it might be an idea to work some of it into the article or share the sources with others so that it can be seen there is no POV synthesis in the article. Maybe BigDunc would like a copy? He's gagging for something against the regiment at the moment. You could give him days, nay - weeks of fun! The Thunderer (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Taylor is obviously reluctant to hint at Intelligence involvement in the events mentioned above. He refused to accept the notion put forward by the father of a girl killed in the Dublin bombings that British Intelligence was behind the bombs and instead told the man that the UDR may have helped the Mid-Ulster brigade of the UVF. Taylor refuses to believe that Captain Nairac was involved in operations and his book never mentions people such as Maynard, Hanna, etc.--jeanne (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that the UVF's so called mid ulster brigade were responsible for the Miami Massacre one could be forgiven for making a logical link between them, individual UDR men and other events. They were also responsible for the substantial theft of weapons from 11 UDR's armoury at Lurgan and a known UVF man was later proven to have been the guard commander that night however there are incidences of known loyalists fron Portadown/Lurgan being refused membership of the UDR so it would be rational to assume that the UDR had tightened up on entry restrictions. We're never going to know all there is to know on these things however and can only quote from what we do know. Assumptions could prove to be manifestly incorrect. The Thunderer (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vincent McKenna's paedophilia

Is this relevant to the article? Mooretwin (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as much as his comments. BigDuncTalk 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that contribution. Anyone else have a view? Mooretwin (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would leave the editors to get on with things, but when it comes to WP:BLP I'm not going to do that. McKenna's conviction is quite irrelevant here. Please don't add it back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Angusmclellan, could you explain how it is a BLP violation? The man was convicted of sexually and indecently assaulting his daughter over eight years that is fact.BigDuncTalk 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
What does it have to do with the UDR?Traditional unionist (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
And the conviction was long after he had made his statements concerning his IRA activities so cannot be seen as relevant. I agree with Angus McLellan. It's a simple case of well-poisoning. Dunc, you're better than this, put something in which is relevant please. The Thunderer (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research." Yes, it's verifiable that he was convicted, but joining up previously unrelated facts is almost always original research and attempts to poison the well are rarely NPOV. If you can find a source which relates these things, fine, otherwise not. The closest I found was the Independent: "some thought London-born McKenna, who moved to Ireland as a child, was a Walter Mitty, a profoundly disturbed individual seeking publicity, often at great personal risk", but that's not exactly a ringing denunciation. Whatever you decide, and there's a talk page here for you to discuss things, you shouldn't be writing a mini-biography to go along with McKenna's comments. Either they are worth including or they aren't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe this information would be absolutely valid on an article about Vincent McKenna. On this article however, when it boils down to it McKenna made statements claiming to have been an IRA member and making certain claims about his time with them. So did Sean O'Callaghan. (and the two match). I note that An Phoblact published material about both of them to discredit them. In the real world this isn't surprising. Their words are as valid as the much vaunted 1973 (supposed) British Intelligence report however which, although subsequently proved true in some respects has also been proven false in others. Even if all of it were true it was published in 1973 and concerns fears from 1970-72 and can't be seen as overly relevant to the 1973-92 period but we let it stay in because it exists, although any valid sources which PROVE untrue aspects of it are included. The upshot of it is: McKenna's criminal convictions some eight years after he made statements concerning the IRA doesn't invalidate his words. So to include the convictions is to say that McKenna's claims of his experiences as an IRA member can't be true as he was later convicted of sex offences. Most definitely an attempt at well poisoning. This is one of the most annoying aspects of editing articles on modern Irish affairs. If it's about the Easter Rising somebody will try to assert that Patrick Pearse was a closet homosexual with a preference for small boys. If it's about the UDR then we get claims that some evidence isn't valid because somebody was later convicted of yadayadayada. It seems to me that some editors with a POV spend a lot of time trying to subvert sources by finding other sources which appear to contradict them or make them invalid in some way, thus providing evidence that the subject of the source suits a particular POV. This needs to stop. The Thunderer (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Intimidation

Inline sources already confirm IRA and intercommunal intimidation. I am happy to see "intimidation from Protestant members" included because common sense tells me it happened and that it may have been pointless for Catholic members to complain as nothing would have been done (probably) but I do have a source which says that no cases of Protestant intimidation were ever proven. If anyone doesn't like the way the item is currently worded then be my guest but IRA and intercommunal intimidation is not "alleged" it was and is proven.The Thunderer (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken TU but I have a source which clearly says no such incidents were proven so there has to be a rewording. I will attend to it later and use the source for inline citation. Now let's see what BigDunc comes up with next?The Thunderer (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the whole "alleged" and "no evidence of a single case of this nature can be found" business. What "evidence" would one expect? If a Catholic member was experiencing harassment and intimidation from fellow members you would hardly expect them to have any confidence in any procedures resulting from a complaint when anyone they would go to is pretty much guaranteed to be a Protestant. Also, as a source, one would hardly expect a book entitled "A Testimony to Courage" and written by a former member of the Crown forces to dig too hard to find any evidence.GiollaUidir (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with you, to an extent. Before rewriting it you need to consider the citation though. If Potter has said no evidence has been found then that's valid but it has to be pointed out that anyone leaving because they felt intimidated (or indeed, just uncomfortable, as I know occurred) then it has to be pointed out to the reader the reasons why they felt that their complaints wouldn't be taken seriously. Initially all the battalions were commanded (I think) by former USC District Commandants. I can support any speculation along those lines with citations. Or if you prefer I can look long and hard at that passage and rewrite it myself pointing out that most Catholics who left because of internal intimidation would have felt that a complaint was an utter waste of time because it wouldn't have received due consideration. What do you think? The Thunderer (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I see what you mean. The absence of evidence is almost more damning of the attitudes in the regiment than if people had felt it worthwhile making a complaint. GiollaUidir (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to look at specific battalions almost to see where this may have occurred. My inclination would be towards the USC dominated battalions like 4 & 6 (remember that's almost 2,000 men). There were reasonable number of Catholics in 3 (Down), 5(Londonderry) and 7 (Belfast), particularly in 3 where they made up 30% of the strength and where Proddies complained they had no chance of promotion because the Catholics were taking all the good posts (a claim of reverse discrimination if you like). I do know from my reading that some Catholic members certainly felt uneasy about reporting for duty in the confines of former B Special huts or halls and that a certain "coldness" (at least) was displayed towards them. I haven't touched it yet because you haven't indicated if you'd like me to tackle it or you want to have a go yourself?The Thunderer (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic members left mainly due to intimidation from the IRA and allegedly from a small number of hardline Protestants within the regiment, although no evidence of a single case of this nature can be found."

--> Scrub "allegedly" and "small number" (unless it can be properly ref'd). Change the last part of the prose to "although no official complaints were made or charges brought against alleged perpetrators (ref the book)."

How does it sound?GiollaUidir (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think that's enough. I'm inclined to say we should be bold and not pussyfoot around the issue. As there were no complaints made these are allegations and it is just a small non-specific number but I think you need to go further and say that "it is reasonable to assume that Catholics who were intimidated out by Protestant soldiers felt it was pointless to complain as their unit was predominantly ex B Men and commanded by an ex B Man". Or something along those lines. I can support such an assertion by at least one quote which says how uncomfortable some Catholics felt in these circumstances. You'd also need to qualify such a statment by saying that such intimidation wasn't institutionalised or widespread. The Thunderer (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed, the point is already elsewhere in the article under "Intimidation" where it says To join such a force was intimidating in itself, especially when many Catholic recruits found themselves reporting for duty in B Specials accommodation units.[61] In some cases, the new Catholic recruits were cold-shouldered or ignored and generally made to feel unwelcome to the point where they resigned. Citerefs are already there so you could use them again if you wish to amplify this point in the section we're discussing? The Thunderer (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

One week. Use it to try and thrash out differences here rather than on the article, please. I am very tempted to throw a block or two out here - this is after all a Troubles-related article. Black Kite 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. I'm sure you can see from recent discussion though and the edit history of the page itself, who is actually involved in discussion, concensus and a general desire to improve the article, and also where the disruption and edit warring is coming from. I leave you to draw your own conclusions but would certainly appreciate any advice you might have. The Thunderer (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

I placed BigDunc (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) under the terms of the Arbcom probation on this article only ([26]). Hopefully this will prevent further edit-warring on this article, and therefore I have unprotected it. Black Kite 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome that judgement. Thank you.The Thunderer (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Definitve History Found

I am very fortunate and pleased to announce that a third definitive history has emerged and the author has provided me with a copy which just arrived today. The History of the 5th (County Londonderry) Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment will provide much needed inside information on structure and life in the battalion. It's really nice to have an ISBN source for these things, it will also take away the need for anyone to be putting "one source only" tags on the article. Just awaiting pictures of pipers now and my life will be complete (they're on their way). The Thunderer (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Catholics in the Regiment

I am just after reading that the uncle of one of the Omagh victims Aidan Gallagher was shot dead by the IRA for being in the UDR. He was a Catholic.--jeanne (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There were Catholics in the regiment throughout its history. Many were killed by the IRA. The Thunderer (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Aidan Gallagher's uncle should be mentioned in the article.--jeanne (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Only if it conforms to the policy that it is "notable". It's up to you if you wish to write it in and cite the reasons why but be prepared for someone to come in later and remove it - not me obviously, I contribute and don't really delete. The Thunderer (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll need to locate his full name and year of death before I put it in. If someone wants to delete it, they can. I personally think it should be mentioned.--jeanne (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I added his name. Does it fit in with the article?--jeanne (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks ok to me.The Thunderer (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Willie Frazer

Is it accurate to describe him as a politician? Personally, I don't think so. Mooretwin (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about him to dispute anything.The Thunderer (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
What are the grounds for describing him as a politician? If there are none, then the article should be changed. Mooretwin (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
He has dabbled in local politics but as yet is unelected. I have no issue with him being described as a politician. Does someone have to be elected to a legislative forum to be a politician? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know - what qualifies someone to be described as a politician? I've dabbled in painting and decorating, but I don't think I could reasonably be described as a painter and decorator. Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you think of a better identifier? Nutter seems a bit unencyclopaedic.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You could simply move him under the heading "Other"? The Thunderer (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; away you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin Lisburn (talkcontribs) 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. The Thunderer (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Uniforms

Were the uniforms of the UDR visibly different to the untrained eye from those of the regular British Army? I made a comment on the UVF talk page to that effect.--jeanne (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No - exactly the same. What might have appeared obvious to some would have been when they wore berets they would have been dark green with a harp and crown badge, although when that was blackened it may not have been that obvious. The Thunderer (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, so it would have appeared to members of the Miami Showband that night that they were being stopped by a British Army checkpoint not neccesarily UDR. The article on the UVF says fake British Army checkpoint and I had assumed it was a fake UDR checkpoint which had stopped the Showband's van.--jeanne (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
To the untrained eye it would have just looked like the British Army. There were no obvious distinguishing features.The Thunderer (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And I reckon to the trained eye a car or van approaching a checkpoint at night would not now who was at the checkpoint until stopped. BigDuncTalk 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the relevance of this discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunc is right and I can see what Jeanne is driving at. If you were stopped at night on a lonely road by a group of people wearing army uniforms and with no vehicles in evidence it would have been difficult to ascertain if they were regular army or UDR until you either got sight of a cap badge (which may have been difficult because they were blackened) or until you heard an accent. If you received orders from these supposed troops to get out of your vehicle and stand to one side in a group or whatever, then you'd have done so because ordinary people would have been compliant. Of course they ran the risk that a real army/UDR/RUC patrol could have come along. Even with insider knowledge of 11 UDR's operations they wouldn't have known about their neighbours at 3 UDR in Newry or the police or regular army.The Thunderer (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Stephen Travers, one of the surviving Showband members, they were convinced it was a genuine Army checkpoint. Also, in Peter Taylor's book "Loyalists" , Combat, the UVF's journal, received a sympathy note from A Company of the Ninth Battalion of the UDR following the deaths of the two UVF men. Their deaths actually provoke me to raise the question of the premature explosion which killed the two men- namely Harris Boyle and Wesley Somerville. Travers says the bomb went off after they closed the van's back doors, but was it accidental or deliberately timed in order to eliminate the two men? After all, there are rumours that they had a hand in the Dubin/Monaghan bombings.--jeanne (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm at work at the moment so I don't know what the UDR's reaction to that sympathy note from 9UDR was. From memory though there's no way they had tried to eliminate the two UVF guys, Harris Boyle was far too active for them to lose him. It was a duff bomb or they did something wrong. The Thunderer (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to keep you from your work Thunderer, but is your "they" the "they" I am alluding to? I'm talking about British Intelligence not the UDR or UVF.--jeanne (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that British Intelligence were involved. Not with the target being a civilan band with no links to PIRA. The Thunderer (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Professional Soldiers (order by appointment)

If we use 'order by appointment' then Potter should be very near the top as he joined in 1970 presumably before some of the others came on the scene. What about amending the list back to 'order by rank (where known)'? A few may change position but it will be more correct.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but his "appointment" was as a major (adjutant). Appointment means "office" in military terms, not seniority.The Thunderer (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of the 'links' are linking to persons who are not involved in this page and may need to be reverted? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. Could you elaborate please? The Thunderer (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why appointment and not rank? I always associated appointment with Naval NOCs.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
See Anderson, Bray & Millar - linking incorrectly. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Played with it - added Sir John Anderson to the list and changed the links for the others. See what you think now? The Thunderer (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK but Anderson on that page is in BOLD.
I know, and I don't understand why. The Thunderer (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Because appointment outdoes rank in some cases. So you have a Deputy Colonel in Chief who is second in command to a Major General and by apppointment comes before a brigadier even though he's one rank behind him. If I list warrant appointments by seniority perhaps it will help (and might contain a surprise):
  1. Conductor (WO1)
  2. RSM (WO1)
  3. WO1
  4. RQMS (WO2)
  5. TQMS (WO2)
  6. SSM (WO2)
Excuse the cavalry rank structure in some cases but one does what one is most familiar with - at least I stopped short of mentioning Corporal Majors ;) The same goes for field and staff officers. You can have one general who's senior to another but by apppointment comes second. You also have situations where temporary local command can see a cornet outrank a colonel and that's before you start exploring brevet rank. The military can be really wierd at times, it takes a long time to understand a lot of the idiosyncracies, like how many feet does a helicopter need to be above your head before you salute it if it is displaying a star plate? The Thunderer (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Benevolent Fund

What is actually known about the UDR Benevolent Fund i.e.: size of fund, income, expenditure, grants, trustees etc?Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing myself other than Major Brian Armstrong (ex 11) is the current regimental secretary. The Thunderer (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in an appropriate UDR Beneovolent Fund article. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Class

Regular contributors to the article may be pleased to note that it's been elevated to B Class on the MilHist scale. In view of that I've also asked the Northern Ireland team to review it and, depending on their answer may also ask the Ireland team to look at it. After all the feathers that have been flying here it's gratifying to see that progress has been made - in good style. The Thunderer (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
One can't do these things alone. It's down to everyone who chipped in. The Thunderer (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)